Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 31)

Return ordered,
respecting application of Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate) during Session 1982–83, (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:—


1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,
of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1982–83 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and of those within the Committees' orders of reference for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the Committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. and by the House respectively, in Session 1982–83, showing the number where the question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 79(5).—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,
of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1982–83:
Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1982–83 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated

—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Order ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1982–83 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,
of the number of Public Bills distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1982–83 showing:



(1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of Prorogation or Dissolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
of Select Committees in Session 1982–83, with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the number of the meetings of each and the number of meetings each Member attended; and the number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with the total cost (estimated where necessary) in respect of each Select Committee and Sub-Committee for the financial year 1982–83 of:—the attendance of witnesses; overseas visits; visits within the United Kingdom; Specialist Advisers' remuneration and expenses respectively, and other work commissioned; entertainment; the preparation for publication of the Minutes of Evidence; and printing and publishing; with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Return ordered,
of the days on which the House sat in Session 1982–83 stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,
for Session 1982–83, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items referred to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) or Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community documents) considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and other items as above considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and other item, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,
of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1982–83; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders:
Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1982–83, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Since I last answered questions on 14 April, there have been three deaths in the Province as a result of the security situation. On 24 April a man was found battered to death in Belfast, while on 6 May the body of a man was found bound and shot in the head near Warrenpoint, Co. Down. The Irish National Liberation Army claimed that he was an informer. As the House will no doubt be aware, on 10 May gunmen burst into a house in Londonderry where a soldier on leave was staying. The soldier's wife was shot dead and the soldier and his sister-in-law were injured. The Provisional IRA has admitted responsibility.
Meanwhile, the painstaking work of the security forces in bringing terrorists to justice continues to meet with steady success. So far this year 195 have been charged with terrorist-type offences, including 13 with murder and 12 with attempted murder; 81 weapons, 30,098 rounds of ammunition, together with 267 lbs of explosives have been recovered.

Mr. Proctor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does he agree that it is right at this time to remember all those who have died in the last four years, during this Parliament; all the members of the security forces who have been on duty in those four years; and Airey Neave, who was assassinated during the run-up to the last general election campaign? Does he further agree that there is a point of danger now for all candidates standing in the election?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. We pay the warmest tribute to the courage of the security forces and to the resilience of the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered so much during these years. I long for a time when this sort of question need not be tabled every month, because in some ways it draws attention to the problems of Northern Ireland, which, although they are great, are sometimes from the security point of view made to look completely out of perspective to the normality of much of life in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: On this final Northern Ireland question day of the present Parliament, may I join in the tributes that have been paid to the security forces for their courage and achievements? We are already seeing the increase in violence which is a prelude to every election. Will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to ensure that every precaution is taken to protect the population in general, particularly against the activities of terrorist organisations, whose front men may be standing as candidates, so attempting to have it both ways?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir, 'we will do all we can. I am in close touch with the Chief Constable and the GOC and will be seeing them again shortly after the weekend. We shall be paying particular regard to candidates standing in the election and I urge everyone to take every possible precaution.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I join in the tribute that has been paid to those who have given their lives in the defence of Northern Ireland, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) did not by intention omit the name of the Rev. Robert Bradford, a serving Member of this Parliament, who gave his life in the cause of Northern Ireland. It is to my great regret that a coat of arms to him is not to be found on the walls of this House, but I hope that will be remedied. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will look at the proposed rundown of full-time UDR men in Carrickfergus and in the town of Larne, and at the proposed rundown of police in the Portglenone area, especially at this time of trouble?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) had no intention of forgetting the Rev. Robert Bradford. I remember that incident well. The House mourns the loss of any Member of the House. As to the hon. Gentleman's other two points, yes, we shall study them. I have written to one of his hon. Friends about the Carrickfergus UDR. I shall bear his other point in mind.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is futile to try to involve either the IRA or Sinn Fein in legitimate democratic politics? Any attempt to do so is bound to lead to disaster. Will he comment on what many people in Northern Ireland regard as the true response that should be made by the nationalist people in Northern Ireland — as expressed by Bishop Daly in Derry last night in the wake of the awful murder—that if anyone votes for Sinn Fein candidates in the forthcoming election he is endorsing the campaign of murder with which we have all lived for so long?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I endorse fully those remarks. I go further and say that the Government have absolutely no intention of dealing with people who at the time that they are professing to work for constituents are working for violence. We deal with constituency cases because we believe that, where they are brought to us, they must be dealt with. I want to make it absolutely plain that I will have no truck with any of the people purporting to stand in democratic elections for democratic government until and unless they renounce violence.

Mr. McCusker: While I appreciate those final comments and understand the Secretary of State's longing that the day will come when such answers will not have to be given, will he bear in mind that since 1 October, the beginning of the Assembly election campaign in county Armagh, the IRA has killed 16 of my constituents? Their dependants will now have to witness the political voicing s of those murderers' spokesmen tramping around Armagh on this campaign. Would it be logical, in view of the Government's decision late last year to ban Sinn Fein, as terrorists, coming to the mainland, to extend the ban and prevent its representatives from standing in the election?

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that we can ban Sinn Fein from the election. Sinn Fein is not a proscribed organisation, and therefore I believe that it would be wrong to ban it. I hope that everyo006Ee in Northern Ireland will mark that those men who profess to be politicians and who express democratic views on the one hand, talk about violence with the Armalite rifle in the other. I hope that no one will be under any illusions and that people will follow the sound advice that has been given to them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I always treat the question on security in Northern Ireland a little differently. I shall let it run a little more, but we shall have to move more quickly on the other questions.

Mr. Cormack: If we are underlining the importance of democracy and paying tributes to courage, would not this be an appropriate opportunity to pay a tribute to the courage of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

Mr. Prior: I should certainly wish to do so if I did not think that I would ruin his election chances.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman and the Orange Order between them are trying to ruin me.

Mr. Winnick: Was not the killing of Mrs. Purvis, the soldier's wife, a foul and cowardly murder even by the IRA's notorious standards? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the views expressed so eloquently by the Catholic Bishop of Derry are the views of everyone who one day hopes to see a united Ireland?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he, as Secretary of State, stands for democracy in elections, unlike some people who will be putting themselves up for election on 9 June, and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to thank him for his work in Northern Ireland over the past two years?

Mr. Prior: That remark, coming from my hon. Friend, who does not always agree with me, is even more appreciated.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does my right hon. Friend not think it appalling that the remarks of Bishop Daly about this foul murder were not reported in the BBC news last night?

Mr. Prior: I believe that that should be drawn to the attention of the BBC and I shall see that it is.

Mr. Concannon: As this is the last Northern Irleand Question Time, the Opposition would like to express their thanks to the security forces of all shades in Northern Ireland and to the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered so grievously over the years. There are always anniversaries in Northern Ireland and I understand that there have been certain demonstrations on anniversaries over the past month, during which there has been a considerable amount of bomb throwing. I understand also that, after their good record of not using baton rounds, unfortunately the security forces have had to use a few baton rounds to disperse those demonstrators. I do not question that, but I wonder what would happen if the baton rounds were not there to be used. Has the Secretary of State any idea of how to rewrite the yellow card or disperse the bomb throwers who are trying to kill the security forces?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for the tribute paid to the security forces by the right hon. Gentleman in the first part of his supplementary. As to the problems of the past few days, particularly in Londonderry, there has been some severe rioting, chiefly by young hooligans. In one evening, 200 petrol bombs were thrown and a number of plastic baton rounds were used. Despite the provocation, only 64 PBRs have been used so far this year compared with 2,000 fired during the same time in 1981. There has been an enormous improvement. If we could not use plastic baton rounds to keep the riots away from the security forces, there is no doubt that the only alternative would be to use lead bullets. I should like to make that absolutely plain. We use baton rounds only in a dire emergency, but the alternative would be far worse.

Management Centre

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the anticipated annual cost of the new management centre in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): At this early stage it is not possible to provide an estimate of the cost of this important initiative. The centre's marketable services are, however, expected to be self-financing.

Mr. Rhodes James: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the Government initiative, which I welcome warmly, but will he assure us that the higher education institutions in Northern Ireland will still have a major role to play in management services?

Mr. Butler: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject. He is expressing anxieties that were shared at the time of the launch. I give the assurance that I gave then—the new centre is intended, not to cut across what the present providers are doing, but to complement that work.

Housing Executive (Tenants)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will relax his rules governing houses purchasd by Housing Executive tenants when the owners are advised to move on security grounds and are assisted forom public funds in doing so.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): The right hon. Member has written to me recently and I am urgently reviewing the position.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his assiduity in attending to the needs and wishes of the people of Northern Ireland within the sphere of his departmental responsibility has been noted widely and will be long remembered? In respect of the subject of this question, does he not accept that it is an anomaly that the state should, on one hand, advise a person to quit his home prematurely and, on the other, rule that those circumstances cannot be taken into account if he has purchased that house from the Housing Executive?

Mr. Mitchell: There are a number of implications in this concession that I am having examined as quickly as possible. I am not unsympathetic to the view expressd by the right hon. Gentleman.

Apprentice Training (Grants)

Mr. Fitt: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on grants to employers for apprentice training in Northern Ireland in the financial year 1982–83.

Mr. Adam Butler: As part of the Government's comprehensive support for training in Northern Ireland, in the last financial year a total of £6,445,769 was paid to employers for the training of apprentices.

Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the plight facing young people in Northern Ireland, the sum that he has announced is a mere drop in the ocean and that much more help should be given to employers to take young people off the streets?

Mr. Butler: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remind him of the sums being spent on youth training in the Province. The youth training programme will cost about £53 million in the current year. That is evidence of the support that the Government are giving and a recognition of the importance of training our young people. It has been a considerable encouragement that the number of apprentices in training has risen in the past year.

Rev. Ian Paisley: How do the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given compare with those in the previous financial year?

Mr. Butler: The figure of £53 million for the youth training programme in the full year 1983–84 compares with about £45 million spent on the youth training programme, the youth opportunities programme and other such measures in 1982–83.

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that sufficient money is going into the Province, perhaps he will tell us how much is being spent on paying unemployment benefit to young people.

Mr. Butler: Thanks to the youth training programme, which applies to all unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds, to those who have jobs, but insufficient training facilities, and to those in education — we introduced the programme a year earlier in Northern Ireland—there are many fewer youngsters on the dole.

Cross-border Security

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Co-operation between the RUC and the Garda continues to play a vital role in countering terrorist activities in border areas and in bringing to justice those who have committed crimes in either jurisdiction.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but has he detected any change in the emphasis of cross-border co-operation in the Republic since the general election there and does he feel that co-operation from the South could be improved or specially emphasised?

Mr. Prior: I have no doubt that co-operation can always be improved, but the Chief Constable reports to me that co-operation is very good, and we can detect no change between one Government and another in the South following the general election.

Mr. McCusker: Is it not a sad commentary on the much vaunted co-operation that the mass murderer

Dominic McGlinchy still manages to evade arrest on each side of the frontier? As he was the subject of the first extradition order to be granted from the Republic, what special measures are being taken to apprehend him?

Mr. Prior: We are doing all that we can to apprehend him and we understand that the same is true in the South. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not always easy to find people in the island of Ireland. On a lighter note—I do not mean to devalue the hon. Gentleman's question—we cannot even find a racehorse.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Have not the police warned hon. Members from Northern Ireland that this man is in Northern Ireland and asked our escorts not to take us through certain areas, especially Toomebridge? Instead of the police station at Portglenone being run down, there should be an increase in the number of security forces in the area so that they can get their hands on this murderer.

Mr. Prior: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that would help us to capture this man, we should like to have it.

Public Works (Expenditure)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current level of expenditure on public works in Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Government's public expenditure plans for the current year envisage over £400 million worth of work being generated in the construction industry in Northern Ireland through direct public sector spending on capital projects and maintenance.

Mr. Dubs: Has the Minister seen the recently published report of the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors, which draws attention to the 25,000 unemployed construction workers and urges a major expansion in the public works programme in Northern Ireland as a means of reducing unemployment without increasing inflationary pressures?

Mr. Mitchell: In addition to the sum that I mentioned, there are Government grants and loans to the private sector totalling about £300 million. One sign of the progress being made by the construction industry in Northern Ireland is that we have the largest house building programme in Belfast for more than 100 years. Last year there was a 17 per cent. increase in private sector house starts.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister agree that if public expenditure were accounted for and presented separately in other regions and areas of the United Kingdom, as it is in Northern Ireland, it would be seen that public attention to special needs is not unique to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I should add that I do not regard public expenditure as a virility symbol.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister agree that there is a haphazard approach to various public expenditure projects in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that in my constituency, where there are so many unemployed, particularly among the young, the Department of Education refused to pay the salary of one school teacher when the employment of that teacher could have kept a lot of young people off the


streets and on the community project in St. Louisa's school? There is great resentment at the fact that the Government, by refusing to help that project, are contributing to the disadvantage in that area of Belfast.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend who looks after the Department of Education is already looking into that matter.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that the report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) showed that the value of public works had dropped from about £149 million to about £112 million? Given that the number of unemployed school leavers has increased by about 1,100 since March, why does the hon. Gentleman not take the advice of the civil engineers and my hon. Friend and increase public works expenditure?

Mr. Mitchell: Outside Belfast we are doing all that is necessary to achieve our target. Inside Belfast, we are held up by lack of available land, but we are clearing land as quickly as we can under the redevelopment area policy. We cannot move faster.

Gaelic Athletic Association

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Department of Education for Northern Ireland will discuss with the Gaelic Athletic Association the withdrawal of its rule 15 in respect of the Province; and if he will make a statement about the ban on British soldiers, Navy men and police.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government have repeatedly stated that they deprecate the GAA rule which limits its membership. I have no reason to believe that it would be responsive to further representations at this time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: But is there not a new development? Has not Captain Fitzgerald of the Irish Army become captain of the British Lions rugby football team, and does not that provide an opportunity to take up the matter afresh? While my hon. Friend is about it, will he ask the president of the GAA to reply to the very courteous letter that I wrote to him several years ago?

Mr. Scott: I will certainly make sure that that message is conveyed in one way or another and I will discuss with the Sports Council in Northern Ireland whether any further representations would be appropriate in the near future.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there is grave anxiety about this matter in Northern Ireland? While the rule remains, with its discriminatory approach, many are concerned that large Government grants are being given to the GAA? Does the hon. Gentleman know of any other country where such a situation would be allowed to continue?

Mr. Scott: It is worth reminding the House that grants have been paid to the GAA since 1962 and that the rule has been in existence for the whole of this century and for some time previously. Stopping grants to the GAA would require a change in the law and I should prefer to keep up pressure and persuasion on the association to get rid of its offensive rule.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the first rule and the basis of the GAA is the

political objective of bringing about a united Ireland? As it mixes its politics with its sport, surely he should not be negotiating with it at all.

Mr. Scott: I am sure that the Government of Northern Ireland between 1962 ad 1972 bore that in mind as well.

Local Enterprise Development Unit

Mr. Timothy Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the performance of the Local Enterprise Development Unit in terms of employment development.

Mr. Adam Butler: I am pleased to say that the number of jobs promoted by LEDU continues to increase. In the year ended 31 March 1983 it promoted a record 2,550 jobs compared with 1,615 in the previous year, itself the highest achieved since the LEDU's formation in 1971.

Mr. Smith: Is this not a remarkable performance at a time of acute economic recession, and does my hon. Friend expect this encouraging trend to continue?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right. It is most remarkable at this time. I expect it to continue, because the unit reports that it continues to have a large number of representations made to it. It has set itself a target of about 3,000 jobs in the present year. The people of Northern Ireland have responded to the efforts of the unit and also to the many measures that the Government have introduced to encourage small businesses, which help to contribute to the recovery of the national economy, along with that of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Minister accept that any success that this organisation may have has been brought about by the dedication, loyalty and sincerity of the staff and officers of the LEDU organisation and, in particular, the almost daily 25-hours-a-day activities of a man called John Carmichael in the LEDU unit in west Belfast, which is so sorely deprived?

Mr. Butler: Without picking on any names, I echo what the hon. Gentleman says. The staff has shown remarkable dedication over the past years, but most particularly, what is so welcome to myself is that the work that it has been doing has achieved the response to which I have referred.

Mr. Soley: If the involvement of the Government in the private sector is so beneficial, as I agree it is, why does not the same philosophy apply in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the figures. Small businesses development has been remarkable in the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

Terrorism

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist incidents there have been in the Province for the first quarter of 1983; and how this compares with 1980, 1981 and 1982.

Mr. Prior: As the answer involves a table of figures, I am having copies of the information requested placed in the Library. The figures show an encouraging decline in the number of shooting and bombing incidents, although unfortunately this has not been matched by the reduction in the number of fatalities.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier comments, does he agree that these figures show that the highly professional activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the Army, are gradually whittling away the strength of the terrorists in Northern Ireland? Do these figures bear out the view that the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly has in no way destabilised security in the Province?

Mr. Prior: I can confirm that there is no conclusion to be drawn from these figures that would suggest that there has been any deterioration in the situation, or problems resulting from the Northern Ireland assembly. I agree that the assembly has helped to create a feeling of political stability and thus normality within the Province. I confirm that things continue to improve, but we still have a long way to go and there is no satisfaction to be drawn from the figures, even as they are.

Mr. Kilfedder: As the fiendish, satanic savagery of the IRA cannot be fully eradicated in Northern Ireland without the full and unequivocal support of both communities in the Province, will the right hon. Gentleman hold a conference with Church leaders to initiate a campaign in those areas whichthe terrorists dominate? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might like to chair that conference after 9 June?

Mr. Prior: I should be happy to chair such a conference after 9 June. I hope that the good works that my hon. Friend has carried out in acting as Speaker of the Assembly in Northern Ireland will also help him to play a part in Northern Ireland affairs after the election.

Mr. Farr: To what extent has my right hon. Friend been able to improve his knowledge of the origin of the weapons used by these criminals in their acts of violence in more recent years?

Mr. Prior: I am not quite certain to what my hon. Friend is referring. If he is referring to intelligence and information, the answer is that more intelligence and information are now available, but what is required is for the whole community to get behind the forces of law and order and to give support. There are too many people at the moment who contract out of the responsibility which they have to the whole community, and out of the lead that is now being given by the Roman Catholic Church.

Housing Policy

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review housing policy in Belfast with a view to eradicating the blighting of areas as a result of failure to maintain houses in proper repair.

Mr. David Mitchell: No. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive reviewed housing policy in Belfast as recently as last year and its housing renewal strategy for the city was published in October.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister acknowledge that, because of long-term planning by hospital services in connection with the city hospital, an area of the Donegall road is in a bad way and grants are not being made to those who want to improve their property, and thus the blight continues?

Mr. Mitchell: The particular and peculiar problems of the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring are being urgently studied.

Mr. Soley: Is there not a strong case for an increase in expenditure on repair and renovation, both for employment and housing purposes? What response has the Minister made to the people in the Moyard and Divis estates about the possibility of demolishing a couple of blocks of those flats and doing the appropriate improvements?

Mr. Mitchell: We have already demolished two blocks in Moyard and have undertaken to demolish two blocks in Divis. As to increased expenditure on repair and improvement in Belfast, I met the full requirement asked of me by the Housing Executive for expenditure under that head in its budget for this year. It has exceeded the budget, and I have managed to find that money as well.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great strides that have been made in the Derry road estate in Ballymena on the Housing Executive estate? Is he further aware that houses need to be taken down and the application has been before the Housing Executive for a long time? When will action be taken in regard to this?

Mr. Mitchell: I paid a somewhat abortive visit to Ballymena last year, and the hon. Gentleman will know that I am hoping to pay another visit, which will enable me to see these and other problems in the town.

Terrorism (Tourists)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many foreign tourists have been killed or injured directly as a result of terrorist violence during the past 10 years.

Mr. Prior: Statistics of this nature relating specifically to tourists are not kept, but I can say that, although the security situation will have deterred a number of tourists from visiting Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority of those who have gone to the Province over the years have had trouble-free holidays. I hope that an increasing number of people will come to learn of the attractions that Northern Ireland can offer to tourists.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, unfortunately, the American Government cannot say the same thing and that large numbers of foreign visitors to the United States of America fall foul of crime, violence and even murder? While the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, quite properly, cannot make much of a point of this, is my right hon. Friend aware that, from the research that I have made, I have found that visitors to Florida in one year suffer more from violence than visitors to Northern Ireland have suffered in the 10-year period about which I asked in my question?

Mr. Prior: That is valuable information. I know that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to promote the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. It is a very beautiful area and the more people who go there the better.

Mr. Concannon: This is a point that needs stressing. The more people who know how beautiful Northern Ireland is, the better. One has only to go down to Fermanagh to see this. Tourists who go to Northern Ireland are well treated and millions of people are happy there. That point is worth stressing, for the normality of Northern Ireland. Any future Ministers with responsibility for Northern Ireland will have to keep their eyes on the various teams that go across to Northern Ireland, including


children's netball teams and so on. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such teams are probably safer in Northern Ireland than they would be anywhere else in the world?

Mr. Prior: Some 700,000 people came to Northern Ireland last year and I should like to see 1 million this year.

Taoiseach

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary State for Northern Ireland whether he has any plans to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Prior: I met the Taoiseach during my visit to Dublin on 5 May.

Mr. Ross: Although I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's meeting with the present Taoiseach, I congratulate him on his refusal to comment on the perfectly understandable remarks of his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence while he was there. Can it be pointed out from the House how much we feel that the tactics of the former Taoiseach are not helping relations between the United Kingdom and Southern Ireland and that the more that we can build up these relations the better it will be for all of us?

Mr. Prior: I think that it would be unwise for me to comment on that.

Mr. Molyneaux: In the regrettable event of a return visit by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic or any future meeting with him, does the Secretary of State feel that it would be beneficial to have with him the present Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that that is a very relevant question, but I should always be pleased to take my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence anywhere.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Secretary of State met the Taoiseach, did he raise with him the matter of extradition? Will he assure the House that that will be the number one topic for discussion between the Taoiseach and the United Kingdom Government?

Mr. Prior: The talks were private, but I can say that it would be an extraordinary occasion when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited anyone in the Republic and did not raise that subject.

Mr. Stanbrook: Did my right hon. Friend tell the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic that a period of quiet on his part and on the part of other Republican politicians in the South would be beneficial to all parties?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that it is quite for me to tell him that, but I assure my hon. Friend that I stressed the need for care in what was said—and that goes for a lot of other people, too.

Craigavon (Surplus Land)

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland when he intends to dispose of the surplus land at Craigavon, county Armagh.

Mr. David Mitchell: Disposal by way of offer to former land owners will commence this summer.

Mr. McCusker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he now put on record what he has told me privately, namely, that he will arrange for the return of

land to the very small number of my constituents who had it taken from them 17 years ago and have never received compensation? Now that the land is no longer required, will the hon. Gentleman say that it will be returned to them without cost to them?

Mr. Mitchell: This matter is under urgent review. I hope to be able to move in the way that the hon. Gentleman requests, but it is necessary to understand the implications, which are wider than those of just Northern Ireland.

Taoiseach

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Prior: I visited Dublin on 5 May and had useful discussions on matters of common concern with Mr. Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, and met the Prime Minister, Dr. FitzGerald.

Mr. Kilfedder: Are the Government of the Republic of Ireland aware that the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland have come to appreciate the value of the Northern Ireland Assembly as a means of dealing with the bureaucracy and helping to shape legislation, or at least influence Government policy in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: The Government of the Republic are more aware of the advantages of the Assembly than they were, but I wish that they would feel able to bring perhaps a little more pressure to bear on the SDLP to take part.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fateful role in the past four years that meetings with Prime Ministers of the Irish Republic have played and that many have lost their lives in Northern Ireland as a result of the implications of what has emerged from those meetings?

Mr. Prior: I refute that last remark totally. I do not believe that the good relations that ought to exist between the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have anything to do with the consequential level of violence in Northern Ireland. It would be an enormous mistake to allow that impression to persist.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Is not my right hon. Friend extremely concerned that, in addition to publishing the most extreme manifesto ever in its distinguished history, the Labour party so far has adopted no fewer than four candidates of the Militant Tendency, including Mr. Pat Wall of Bradford, who wants a Marxist-Socialist economy and to abolish the monarchy, the House of Lords, judges,


admirals and, if he gets round to it, even the Leader of the Opposition himself? Will my right hon. Friend call upon the right hon. Gentleman to show some courage and leadership and disown such candidates?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The policy document that we have seen is the most extreme ever put before the British electorate by any Opposition. I believe that the British electorate will know what to do with it. The people will reject it totally.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the Prime Minister now say whether she intends to go to the Williamsburg summit? Will she bear in mind that, although I have no desire to see her out of the country in the next four weeks, at this meeting of Heads of Government a country that is not represented by the Head of its Government is not properly represented? I say this on the basis of the one experience when this occurred.

The Prime Minister: The matter is still being considered. Britain will, of course, be represented. The question is whether I myself go. It is good to know that many people wish me to go to that very important summit.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 12 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dormand: Bearing in mind that unemployment in the northern region has increased every month since May 1979, now stands at a record 17·8 per cent. and has increased by 118 per cent. since her Government came to power, will the right hon. Lady say what benefits she thinks the people of the north have obtained from her four-year rule?

The Prime Minister: They have the lowest rate of inflation for 15 years. They have had very, very firm defence, which affects everyone in the country. They have had the right to buy council houses, which no member of the hon. Gentleman's party would have given them. Even taking inflation into account, they have had an increasing amount spent on the National Health Service. Pensioners have the highest value pension ever. The war widows have been looked after very well.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there is a very large lead shown in the opinion polls at the moment, which suggests a landslide victory for her of 1931 proportions, it is only the vote on 9 June that matters? There should be no complacency on my right hon. Friend's part.

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have to work to win.

Mr. Foot: I know that the right hon. Lady is somewhat reticent about making forecasts, but she sometimes overcomes her inhibitions at election time. Will she tell us the prospects for inflation, unemployment and the balance of payments by the end of the year? Will she confirm that inflation and unemployment will have risen and the balance of payment situation will be very serious?

The Prime Minister: I follow the example set by the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Government in not making forecasts of unemployment. As for inflation, I believe that the forecasts are being marked down. That is, prices are not rising so rapidly as was thought when the

Chancellor gave his Budget forecast. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will wait a few more months he will see for himself.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady might have waited a few more months if she was so confident. Is she telling the country that the prophecy of 6 per cent. inflation is unlikely to be reached? Is she saying that the prophecy of a further £1·5 billion on the balance of payments deficit is likely to be reached? Is she also saying that we shall not see a rise in unemployment of 1,250,000 this year over and above the record unemployment levels for which she is directly responsible?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that in about five years out of seven inflation forecasts for November have been wrong. That is why we have changed the system of uprating pensions from the forecast to an actual basis. One of the first things that we had to do on taking office was to give a greater increase in pensions because of the under-forecasting under the Labour Government.
Balance of payment figures are very difficult to forecast. Forecasts over the lifetime of the Government have underestimated the superb performance of the past two years. Exporters are performing well and should be congratulated.

Sir William Elliott: On the original question on employment in the northern region, is my right hon. Friend aware that very good news is coming from that region? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, the hon. Gentleman is going."] Is she aware that Northern Engineering this week won a £70 million contract for a power station in Singapore against the strongest world competition, including Japan, which had dominated the area for many years? Is she also aware of the enormous success of the enterprise zones in the northern region?

The Prime Minister: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Northern Engineering on winning one of the best orders that we have ever won in Singapore. It was won in partnership with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, which did all that it could to help. That is one piece of very good news, among others, in the northern region.

Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of the Prime Minister's professed support for multilateral arms reduction, why has she rejected out of hand the five proposals by Mr. Andropov in the past four months? Does that not show that she does not really want any arms reduction at all, and is it not verging on hypocrisy to pretend otherwise?

The Prime Minister: No, I turn the hon. Gentleman's comments back on him. The only place to negotiate disarmament is Geneva, where the negotiations properly take place. Proper reductions have not yet been proposed across the table by the Soviet Union. According to President Reagan, Ambassador Nitze has instructions to consider any reasonable proposition that is put. That is where such propositions should be put.
I believe that Mr. Andropov and the Soviet Union are hoping that if a Labour Government come to office in this country the Soviet Union will be able to keep all its nuclear weapons and to persuade the people of this country to disarm. That danger will not arise, but I do not believe that


there will be serious disarmament proposals at Geneva until the result of the general election is known and puts this side of the House back on this side.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Prime Minister today speak to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the need to make urgent representations to the French Government about the vicious attacks by French farmers on lorrymen from Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom? Is she aware that lorries have been attacked, goods pulled off and burnt and lives put in danger?

The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The common agricultural policy prices are being negotiated and they always cause problems, but on the whole farmers in all countries have had a very good deal on prices.

Mr. Newens: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Newens: Does the Prime Minister regard the huge increase in unemployment, the serious decline in manufacturing output, the increases in taxation for the lower paid, the vast number of company liquidations and the savage cuts in the social services and in house building as compatible with the extravagant promises that she made at the last general election? In those circumstances, how on earth does she expect people to believe what she says now? Is she not simply trying to pull another supreme political confidence trick on the British public?

The Prime Minister: One gains jobs by gaining customers. There is no other way. On the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there have not been social service cuts. Even after taking account of inflation, more is being spent on the National Health Service. The amount spent per year on the NHS when we came to office was E7·5 billion. It is now £15 billion. There are more than 40,000 more nurses and midwives in England and 6,000 more doctors and dentists. Pensions have not been cut. Pensions are the best that they have ever been— far better than when Labour was in power—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked a question and I intend to answer it. A record amount has been spent for every pupil in education and the proportion of teachers to pupils is greater than ever before.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 500,000 council tenants who have bought their homes under the right-to-buy legislation will be eternally grateful to the Government? Is she further aware that when the 4 million waiting to buy their homes read "The New Hope for Britain" they will know that under Labour they would have no chance at all of ever owning their own homes?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. It is a feature of this Government that we give council tenants the opportunity to become home owners. The Labour party would deprive them of the right to buy, deprive voluntary purchasers of discount and fetter resale. Every council tenant who wishes to own his home must therefore earnestly hope for a return of this Government.

Mr. Marks: Does the Prime Minister intend to trot out once again her nine-year-old promise to substitute another tax for rates? If she does, who will pay more than at present—businesses or families?

The Prime Minister: That was not a promise in the last manifesto. The hon. Gentleman must wait patiently to see the proposals in the text.

Sir Albert Costain: Does my right hon. Friend agree that failure to deliver goods on time causes unemployment? Can she think of any occasion on which Labour Members have done anything to stop strikes that have caused goods not to be delivered?

The Prime Minister: Failure to deliver goods on time loses us a lot of orders and therefore loses us jobs that we might otherwise have had. It also gives Britain a bad reputation. We would have had many more jobs now had we had greater industrial efficiency and goods delivered on time.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have received representations from Father Daniel Zaffaroni, in connection with alternative proposals for a visit to the Falklands by relatives of Argentine war dead.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Why was no magnanimity shown to the relatives of the Argentine war dead in view of the Prime Minister's knowledge that the Belgrano had been sunk, when there was a treaty, bound in red leather, which her Foreign Secretary was ready to sign? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is not the horrific truth that those men who died on the Belgrano and on the Sheffield died because of her concern that, if the treaty were to come through, the Conservative party would change her for the Foreign Secretary and put him in Downing Street? If that is doubted, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) knows that it is true.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's allegations are utterly ridiculous. The Belgrano was sunk for military reasons and the threat was real. News of the Peruvian proposals did not reach London until after the attack. The record shows that our efforts to reach a negotiated settlement continued until 17 May, 15 days after the sinking of the Belgrano on 2 May.

Mr. Speaker (Retirement)

Mr. Speaker: I have a personal statement to make of a valedictory nature.
I wish to express my deep and sincere gratitude to all those who have served the House during my time as Speaker. I am conscious that the House functions as well as it does only because of the dedicated service given by those who serve in the various Departments of the House.
To the Clerks of the House; the Serjeant at Arms and his staff; the Library staff; Hansard; the Vote Office; the Refreshment Department; the Fees Office; the Establishments Office; the police and custodians; and all who work on the maintenance and cleaning arrangements in the House, I express profound appreciation.
I am particularly in debt to all those who have served as Deputy Speakers during my period of office. Each is a personal friend whose loyalty and support have enriched my Speakership. I want also to express gratitude to those hon. Members who have served on the Panel of Chairmen, for without their service our Committee system could not survive.
I express gratitude to the Lobby and the Press Gallery for the way in which they honour our traditions, for I believe that a free and responsible press is as important as freedom of speech for Members of the House.
During my period of office there have been three different Chaplains to the Speaker. Each has brought faithful dedication to the service of the House, and I am grateful to them.
The House will understand that I want to pay special tribute to the personal staff in Speaker's House where I have been protected and cared for in a most wonderful way. Indeed, they have been as my family. The devotion of the staff of my constituency secretary and my housekeeper makes me a singularly fortunate man. My office has been presided over by two Principal Secretaries and I shall always feel that I am in their debt.
I am not alone in leaving the House after long service. There are many other right hon. and hon. Members who will be bidding farewell to the House which they love and honour, and I know that the House will wish them well.
I want to express to the House the humble pride that I shall always have in the knowledge that for seven years I have been trusted by the House with the high and honourable office of Speaker of this House of Commons at Westminster. One of the great joys of my life has been to forge friendships in all parties in the House. My office has also led to friendship with Speakers throughout our Commonwealth, in Europe and in other parts of the world. I am proud that the House is still held by other Parliaments in affectionate respect and referred to as the Mother of Parliaments.
Throughout my 38 years' membership of the House I have always felt deep affection and respect for its traditions. Traditions which have survived the test of time should not lightly be discarded. There is a meaning and a strength behind the traditions that we observe and I rejoice to know that the House still guards them. I rejoice in the place the House has in our national life. Despite all our human frailties, the House is still Britain's bastion for democracy. It is here in this Chamber and in Parliament as a whole that the liberties of our people must be

protected. We are a great parliamentary democracy and I trust that the House will ever protect the values that brought greatness to our history.
My heart will be with you all, and I shall never forget the steadfast support and friendship that I have received from both sides of the House and which is reflected in the early-day motion on the Order Paper today, for which I express deep gratitude.
God bless you all. God bless this House and our country that we may always cherish the heritage of freedom handed to us by our fathers. Thank you for the privilege of serving as your Speaker.

Resolved,
That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has said this day to the House; and that the same be entered in the Journals of this House.—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. Speaker: I would have taken a poor view had the motion not been resolved.

The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
That the thanks of this House be given to the Right honourable George Thomas for the great distinction with which he has upheld the traditions of the Speakership during the past seven years; that he be assured that his unfailing fairness, personal kindness and dedication to the House have earned him its respect and affection; and that all Members unite in wishing him every happiness in his retirement.
It is difficult to find adequate words, Mr. Speaker, to follow you or to thank you for everything that you have done in that Chair. It was my privilege when I was Leader of the Opposition to congratulate the then Speaker-elect just before Her Majesty the Queen had approved our choice of you, Sir, as our 153rd Speaker. The choice which the House made was unanimous. All of us who were then Members of this place, whether new or with a longer period of service, recognised your outstanding, nay, your unique, qualities.
Seven years and more have passed. Throughout those years the way that you have fulfilled your responsibilities has outshone even our highest expectation.
When you were elected as our Speaker you had already served in this House for 31 years. You brought to your high office a wealth of experience as a Minister, as a member of the Cabinet, as the first Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee and then as Chairman of Ways and Means. Many great men have occupied your Chair, but it is a measure of your Speakership that you have become a legend in your lifetime. Your voice, which has been broadcast every day when the House has been sitting, has become familiar to millions throughout the world as the Speaker of the Mother of Parliaments. You have often reminded the House by word and example of your abiding affection for the House of Commons and of your reverence for the institution of parliamentary democracy, as you did, once again, today. You have upheld with a special combination of impartiality and authority the dignity of your office and of this House, for which we are grateful.
There are two other qualities that we who have had the privilege of serving under your Speakership will remember. You have been not only our Speaker but our friend. You have often displayed at moments of drama or tension a characteristically Celtic sense of humour that has delighted us all. We realise what a poignant day this is for you, as it is for us. Your occupancy of the Chair will be a model and a guide for those who follow you. Your wise advice on many matters will be eagerly sought by your


abundant friends. In our several capacities, we hope to see much of you in the future. I am sure that the wish of the new Parliament, in accordance with our tradition, will be to approve the customary address to honour your period of office.
Wherever we sit or work in this building, Mr. Speaker, we join in gratitude for your service to us and in good wishes for your retirement. We say farewell to one of our greatest Speakers.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition are most grateful to the Prime Minister for the motion that she has placed on the Order Paper and for the terms in which she has presented it to the House. The Opposition take a naturally special pride in the way in which you have discharged your functions to the House and to the country. You have brought nothing but honour and distinction to the high office to which you were elected. We are grateful for that. As the Prime Minister said, thanks to the introduction of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, which is not necessarily an unmitigated boon, a special flavour has been given to the way in which the business of the House has been conducted, and the bewitching and appeasing lilt of Tonypandy has been heard across the entire country and perhaps across the entire world. It has given a special colour to the affairs of the House.
Only a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I paid a visit to your home town of Tonypandy to commemorate the services given to the House by the former right hon. Member for Rhondda, Alec Jones. I am sure that if he were present he would be one of the first and most eager of hon. Members to join in the tributes to you. He had special knowledge of your service to the House. He also had special knowledge of how much your election as Speaker of the House meant to the people of Tonypandy and of the way in which you discharged your duties.
I recall that some time ago I went to Cardiff where your Speakership was also celebrated. It celebrated the special combination of qualities that you have brought to the office—qualities of wit, humour, practical experience, Welsh courtesy and Welsh guile, all in their special quantities. I assure you that they have all been appreciated.
I had a special opportunity of seeking some of those qualities in action as I attended some meetings or functions when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was Prime Minister and you were Speaker. They gave to me, as a naive politician from the valleys, an insight into the way in which Cardiff politics are conducted, which I have never forgotten and never betrayed.
The most famous of all speeches ever made by any of your distinguished predecessors was that made by Speaker Lenthall on the most famous of occasions when the rights of the House were protected. All right hon. and hon. Members know the speech. Speaker Lenthall said:
May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here;".
That, I am sure, is what you, Mr. Speaker, would have said on that occasion if you had been in charge. It is a good lesson for all subsequent Speakers. I shall not press the comparison too strongly because Speaker Lenthall, despite

his great service to the House and country on that occasion, was subsequently involved in financial dealings that led to an investigation. He wavered in his party allegiance, although I am not sure in which direction. He ended up in Oliver Cromwell's House of Lords. I do not know whether any such fate is to befall you, Mr. Speaker.
You, Mr. Speaker, have always followed the traditions of Speaker Lenthall in defending and sustaining the rights of the House with a peculiar grace and charm that nobody else could have matched. There is a Methodism in your magnificence. It will be extremely difficult for anybody to follow in your footsteps. I pity your successor, for you have followed, which it is not always possible to achieve, a straight and narrow path to a destination of universal acclaim. Some right hon. and hon. Members wish that we could do the same.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will carry away from this occasion the good wishes of us all. We wish to see you on many occasions in the future. We consider that you still have a great contribution to make to the political life of the country. Nobody could have given their services to the House and to the country more generously and more magnanimously than you.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I add the tribute of my hon. and right hon. Friends to those in the speeches that have already been made by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I have at least one disqualification for this task. I was, Mr. Speaker, a Member of this House for just the first and last years of your Speakership, but that gives me a perspective of comparisons. At the beginning, you were in gentle command and at the end your were supreme, but still gentle.
I have, however, one special qualification to balance the disqualification. I am the only hon. Member to have had the temerity to be your departmental chief. How I ever managed to exercise appropriate authority in those circumstances is almost beyond my imagination. You had, however, developed a quality that has been an important ingredient in your success in the Chair. When I first went to the Home Office at the end of 1965, you were Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. A tradition had already developed under my predecessor that whenever the Home Office was in more trouble than usual in this House the cry went up, "Let George do it. He will disarm." Indeed, had you not been occupied in your exalted office, you might even have been useful in recent times to the present Home Secretary. However, all that was a long time ago.
There have been six Speakers since the war. Few of us have served under all of them. None of them has been bad, most have been good, but without question you have enhanced the standard during your seven years of office. Reference has already been made to the introduction of broadcasting. There is clearly room for differing views about its impact on the public consciousness of the House, but there is no doubt that it has enhanced the public impact of the Speaker and that popular respect for both the office and the man has greatly increased.
To add even temporary lustre to an office that has existed for more than 600 years is a difficult feat. To add a little that will last is almost impossible, yet I believe that you have achieved that. More domestically, we in the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party—not, in


parliamentary terms, one of the juggernauts of our jousting politics — are grateful to you for your courtesy and fairness. We join with others in expressing our respect, affection and warmest wishes for a future in which you will be sustained by the lasting gratitude of this House and the respect of the nation.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is a privilege and pleasure for me to add a small word of appreciation to the felicitous speeches by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the eminent right hon. Members for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who addressed us from the Opposition Benches.
On 9 May 1979 you were elected Speaker following the proposal of myself, seconded by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). The conventions of the House compel me to refer to him as the right hon. Member, but he is, of course, my right hon. Friend in every real sense of the word, and I am very glad to see him in his place today. I only wish that all my clients had turned out as well as you, Mr. Speaker.
In submitting yourself, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with ancient custom to the will of the House, you used the following words:
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East has now proposed or seconded the re-election of the Speaker more often than I have preached Methodist sennons." —[Official Report, 9 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 7.]
Modesty forbids me to continue the citation, but I cannot suppress the gratitude I feel. In the words of Cicero, so familiar to all here present—
Laetus sum laudare a laudato viro.
You, Mr. Speaker, are certainly a man highly praised, and rightly and universally praised.
I am honoured to have proposed your election as Speaker, and the House will readily appreciate that toovercome, so triumphantly, the initial handicap of assuming high office on my proposition points clearly and conclusively to a very high quality indeed. The high quality of your performance, Mr. Speaker, in the great office of Speaker, rests on much more substantial evidence than any mere testimony of mine. It is evidenced by the record known to, and appreciated by, us all.
When I had the honour to second your initial election as Speaker on 3 February 1976 I used these words of you:
He is richly endowed with those qualities that make a good parliamentarian and a much-loved colleague — not only eloquence and judgment, although he has both in good measure, but courtesy and consideration, affability and sensibility, kindliness and good humour, and a wit that often scores but never wounds." — [Official Report, 3 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1156.]
Today, I reaffirm those words, but I do more. What I said then as to your quality is confirmed and proven, clear beyond peradventure. What was then expectation is now realisation. What was then confident surmise is now established fact. What was then aspiration for the future is now present certainty, based on the solid foundation of past performance.
I have known six Speakers in 11 Parliaments and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead has referred to them. They all had distinctive qualities and all made a valuable contribution to the service of this House. However, your contribution, Mr. Speaker, has been second to none and is not even excelled by that of my much

loved and greatly venerated friend, "Shakes" Morrison, who was Speaker in the 1950s. It is not for me to dilate on the great eminence of the office of Speaker, which you have filled with such distinction, because such matter; are known to us all.
In his office, Mr. Speaker is a sign and symbol of the authority of Parliament and a sign and symbol too of those great parliamentary institutions which, cradled here in Westminster in the mists of the middle ages, have gone out to the uttermost ends of the earth. The Speaker of the House of Commons is the custodian of our parliamentary rights, the guardian of our parliamentary liberties and of our heritage, acquired for us by our forefathers over long and laborious years. By his office, Mr. Speaker is the head and front of British parliamentary institutions, themselves a model and exemplar far beyond these shores, wherever democracy is practised and liberty is prized.
Today, we salute you, omnium consensu. It is perhaps good for us to remember, on the eve of a period of vigorous exchanges on the hustings, that in this great democracy of ours the things that unite us are deeper and more lasting than those that put us asunder. One and all, irrespective of party, are here a goodly company and heirs to a great tradition, exercising on behalf of those we here represent those democratic rights and freedoms taken perhaps for granted through long enjoyment in this country, but envied by many people in many lands who have them not. They are like the air we breathe—little noticed in their presence but valued beyond price in the event of deprivation.
If I continued longer the House would weary not of your excellence but of my iteration. We salute you here today. This is the last speech that I shall make in the House that I have known so long, loved so well and sought to serve a little. I cannot adequately express to you, Mr. Speaker, the deep and abiding pleasure it gives me that this last speech should be made in tribute to your high quality and great service, assisted at all times by the zeal, expertise and unvaried helpfulness of our distinguished Clerk of the House and his admirable team.
In gratitude and affection, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, from the bottom of my heart and wish you well, now and at all times.

Mr. James Callaghan: I hope that the House will forgive me if I take a few moments to speak in support of the Prime Minister's motion, which was moved so generously and was supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, have been parliamentary neighbours for 38 years. We have been close personal friends for more than 40 years, and I suppose that there ha .s never been a parliamentary partnership as long-standing as ours. We fought our first campaigns together when we were young men. When we first entered the House, rather nervously on that first proud day, when we sat side by side, I do not think that I then saw in you the qualities that have distinguished you since as Speaker. I do not think that I recognised that cool, judicial approach. What is more, I am certain that you did not think that I would ever make a Prime Minister. We were very proud of ourselves on that day. You and I were proud to enter the House together. We have been proud to serve it ever since.
Perhaps I am in a unique position as Mr. Speaker's parliamentary neighbour. I shall take a few minutes to speak of the deep respect and affection in which he is held in his constituency and throughout Cardiff by political supporters, political opponents and by members of all parties and of none. Mr. Speaker is referred to as "Our George", which in itself is sufficient testimony of the deep love that people have for him.
If friendship is one of the most rewarding gifts, Mr. Speaker is the wealthiest man alive. He gives himself so spontaneously and so generously that all he meets find him quite irresistible. He is a living example of the old truth that it is better to give than to receive. His generosity of spirit has come back to him and brought him very great happiness. Although he has maintained a strictly judicial approach to his duties as Speaker, those of us who know him best are only too aware of the passionate nature that lurks beneath that wig and robes and that occasionally he fails to conceal.
I know, as most of us know, Mr. Speaker, that your strong moral convictions are derived from the Christian Socialist precepts that were instilled into you by your beloved mother. They have guided you throughout your life. Those who have known you only as Speaker will not have seen what a passionate controversialist you can be, as you showed in your long and successful fight for leasehold enfranchisement for the people of South Wales.
Most of us know of Mr. Speaker's infectious good humour. We know that he seldom, if ever, uses his famous wit at the expense of hon. Members. In eloquence, Mr. Speaker is of the self-mocking type. Despite his great achievements, he has always been unduly modest about his own very considerable ability. By general consent, he has been an outstanding Speaker. By his conduct in the Chair and with the aid of broadcasting, he has transformed what always has been an important, but nevertheless relatively obscure, office into one that is known and respected throughout the length and breadth of Britain.
In doing that, Mr. Speaker, you have elevated Parliament and made it the rightful focus and centre of the nation's attention. No one could leave behind a more valuable testimony than that to the democratic traditions that you hold so dear.
Although you are leaving the House, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that your influence will remain. Your concept of the way in which Mr. Speaker's responsibilities and powers should be exercised is stamped upon our practices. Knowing your ardent spirit, I do not expect that you will fade into silence. Indeed, I trust that you will continue to remain a force in our public life. For me the House will never be quite the same again. I cannot even be sure that I shall again be called to speak. As one old friend to another, thank you and God bless you.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call spokesmen from all parties. I shall have mercy on the House and see that we do not continue too long, but I wish to call several right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Prime Minister's motion acknowledges that your many fine qualities Mr. Speaker, have earned for you the respect,

admiration and affection of the House. That respect and admiration are much in evidence throughout the kingdom. I want to express briefly but sincerely the appreciation of my colleagues and myself for your sympathy and your understanding of the people of Ulster and of their representatives here. We wish you well in the future.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Following the many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members and leaders of parties, I wish to express in a few short sentences the best thanks of the many Back Benchers who would like to speak if time allowed them the opportunity. To you, Sir, for your service—your incomparable service—to us all I express my own deep gratitude for your constant encouragement and friendship. Brevity is to be the rule of the day, but that is directly in inverse proportion to the emotion which we all feel this afternoon.
You, Sir, have been respected as your office deserves and as you have merited. Your strength—the basis of all your conduct in this place—has been your obvious affection for Parliament, your understanding of its needs and purposes, and your determination to protect its traditions and to enhance them if possible in the modern context.
One aspect which is little known and merits record. Over the last decade I have sought to establish, without blunting our party differences, a practical liaison between the Parliamentary Labour Party and the 1922 Committee. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who is in his place, and the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) have been fine colleagues and companions in that endeavour. We have sought to discuss and advance matters of common interest to Back Benchers and to all hon. Members wherever they sit, especially in relation to our conditions of work here and to our service.
Decisions about such matters are for the House and not, as too often we have permitted in the past, for the Government of the day or party leaderships alone. We have made some progress and I have no doubt that we shall make some more in the next Parliament. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, you are the custodian of the rights of all Members and have been the staunchest of allies and companions. Your support has been invaluable.
As we all know, and as has been hinted at in the admirable speeches to which we have listened, the office of Speaker is lonely. Mr. Speaker is not always popular, for the selection of participants in debates is invidious and the imposition of discipline in the general interest is often resented by individuals and groups. Dispassionate rulings may not always be acceptable to the Government, who invariably have an axe to grind, or to the Opposition, who in prejudice are always the Government's rival.
You, Mr. Speaker, never courted regard. Instead, proudly, you earned it and deserved it. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, none of us envies your successor, for you are no easy man to follow, whether in skill in the Chair or in humour. Whoever the House chooses as Speaker in the next Parliament will respect your example and aspire to it. May that be your continuing testimony and memorial in the years to come and may the words which you spoke today, which were so admirable, be a continuing inspiration to us all. HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."

Mr. Jack Dormand: The motion before us states that your qualities, Mr. Speaker, have earned you respect and affection. That is most certainly true, but they have also earned you justifiable fame.
I had an experience yesterday which was a repetition of previous experiences. I was showing a group of sixth formers from my constituency around the Palace and expounding on the history and the happenings of the place but I kept getting gentle interruptions. "Where does the Speaker sit? Are you a friend of the Speaker? Do you not think that Speaker Thomas is a good headmaster?" Dare I say—perhaps I should not confess this—that I felt just the tiniest tinge of jealousy. I felt like saying, although I did not, Sir, "I am your Member of Parliament, not Mr. Speaker."
I recount that episode because I think it is another illustration of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have captured the hearts of young and old alike. The allusion to your being a good headmaster was apt. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have experienced the world of schools. We know that a headmaster must be firm, fair and, if he is to be really successful, be endowed with an appealing personality. Sir, you have all those qualities and more in full measure. Your humour is legendary. It will be greatly missed and talked about for generations.
I said that we had our educational backgrounds in common. There is an even greater bond—your part of the country and mine, South Wales and Durham. Our people are the same kind of human beings. No one appreciates more than they do the qualities of their sons in achieving high office by dint of hard work, fairness and strength of purpose. You have brought great honour to Wales, not only in coming to the office of Speaker but in the manner in which you have carried out your most onerous duties. In my own part of the country among the same kind of people, I have basked in the glory of being able to say that you are a personal friend. I know that I speak for all of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches when I offer my most sincere thanks for your fairness, your guidance and for the help you have given us. We wish you, Sir, a very long and happy retirement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the Father of the House that once I have called him that will be the end of the debate.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I rise not to speak on behalf of my party, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) has already done so, but to refer to two aspects of your work which have not so far been mentioned.
You are, Sir, the first Speaker to be chairman of the House of Commons Commission—the body set up at the instigation of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) which took unto the House's charge so many matters that had previously been the charge of Government. It has been my privilege to serve on it—I think I am the only Member to have do so — since the day you became its chairman. In discharging that task, you have sought to strengthen the rights and traditions of the House and to ensure the continuance of the House's work into the future. Members

for many generations to come will be grateful for the work that has been done. Those of us who have been members of the Commission are deeply grateful for the way in which you have conducted its proceedings.
Secondly, I wish to express a few words on behalf of those younger Members—there are many of us —to whose families you have shown particular consideration. —[Hon. Members: "Hear, Hear."] I do not believe that there can have been a time—certainly not in recent memory—when children have been so welcome in the Speaker's House and when Members' families have felt that they had a friend in the Speaker's Chair.
I hope, with the time that will now be available to you —I say this particularly as a Methodist—that you will fill many of our chapels, and on many public platforms will address yourself to the children and young people whose imagination, as the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) pointed out, you have captured. I hope that you will continue to advocate and preach to them the fine spiritual and democratic heritage that has meant so much to our country and upon which it depends.
Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I make my usual speech. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising as long as they do not speak for too long.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Among the great and lasting services that you, Mr. Speaker, have performed for the House during your Speakership is the extent to which you have drawn back to your elected office powers nominally reposed in it by the House but which, with the effluxion of time have this century passed from elected hands into others. In so doing you have, I believe, performed a timely and very important service to the House.
That process is best illuminated by your decision that private rulings by Mr. Speaker which might be regarded as precedents are to be published in the Votes and Proceedings in the exact words in which Mr. Speaker gives the rulings, so that all Members of the House and the country outside may know the ruling given by Mr. Speaker and not have it merely produced as a surprise, in words which were not Mr. Speaker's and on occasions which he did not foresee. You have performed a great service to the House in that as in so many other ways.
The extent to which your Christian conviction has illuminated your Speakership and your attitude to your fellow Members puts me in mind of those lovely words used by Queen Elizabeth I in her last speech from the Throne:
Though God hath raised me High, yet this I count the glory of my Crown, that I have Reigned with your loves.
You have reigned over us, Mr. Speaker, with our loves.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall probably be the only Member to speak on this motion who has run foul of your rulings on two occasions—once on the Floor of the House and once in the Gallery. I wish to make it clear that I am not here today as a penitent, but that with great gladness I join other Members in paying to you the eulogy you deserve. Coming from that part of Ireland where Patrick first evangelised, perhaps I might say that I am presenting you with a shamrock tribute. There is nothing


sham about it, and it is not like the eulogies that some politicians in Ulster receive—a literal rain of stones. The rock is solid and we wish you well
I call the attention of the House to one thing that happened in the House today which I think illustrates your character and your convictions. It was so nice that, at the end of Prayers, you repeated the Grace. Acting perhaps in another capacity, I would simply say to you, as a staunch Calvinist to a staunch Arminian and Methodist, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you for ever." Thank you.

Mr. John Page: If I may cause our proceedings slight delay,
To thank you for the things you do
In helping out the the IPU"—

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: And the CPA.

Mr. Page: When Outward delegations went to Lima, Cairo or Tashkent,
You never failed to take the Chair,
Adjudging with the greatest care
Which members from those who applied
Should go or should be set aside.

Disappointed chaps were cowed
To know by whom they weren't allowed,
When Inward delegations came
They were invited in your name
And said the part they liked the most
Was dining with you as their host.

In Speaker's House they grandly sit,
Responding to your charm and wit.

And when at last they travelled from us,
Like us they praise our Speaker Thomas.

Mr. John Parker: As Father of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say on behalf of all Back

Benchers how much we have appreciated your position as Speaker. I have been here for 48 years, and there have been seven Speakers and 11 Prime Ministers during that time. It is worth remembering that Speakerships tend to last longer than Prime Ministerships. You have always been considerate to each Member, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time you have maintained law and order.
I remember the first Speaker in my time, Captain Fitzroy. He was definitely a bit of a tartar. He disliked new young Members. When he was in the Chair, if someone spoke for too long he banged his hand on the side of his Chair. The longer the Member continued to speak, the more vigorously he hit the Chair. Everyone saw that except, unfortunately, the Member who was speaking, who was not deterred. Captain Fitzroy took a firm revenge and did not call that Member for a long time.
Captain Fitzroy once told me that, as a descendant of Nell Gwynne and Charles II, the most embarrassing thing that he had had to do in the House was to announce the abdication of Edward VIII. He found that awkward and embarrassing.
The House has very much appreciated your period in office, Mr. Speaker. We wish you every good luck. It has been a memorable Speakership—the most memorable of the past 50 years. We congratulate you on that and hope that you will have a happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker: I shall content myself with saying "Thank you".

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That the thanks of this House be given to the Right honourable George Thomas for the great distinction with which he has upheld the traditions of the Speakership during the past seven years; that he be assured that his unfailing fairness, personal kindness and dedication to the House have earned him its respect and affection; and that all Members unite in wishing him every happiness in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker: Tomorrow morning, after we take Prayers, I shall suspend the Sitting for long enough to shake by the hand those hon. Members who are present. I shall then take my farewell of this Chamber for the last time. The Deputy Speakers will continue with the day's business.

Privileges Committee (Business)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, the Leader of the House said in reply to a question:
If he"—
meaning myself—
has any reason to believe that Mr. Paul Foot has breached privilege, it is open to him to come to the House and act accordingly."— [Official Report, 9 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 628.]
It may not be appropriate to raise this matter following the praises rightly given to you, Mr. Speaker, but it is a matter of considerable importance to the House in two respects. First, there is unfinished business before the Privileges Committee, which is examining a case that created a great deal of discussion—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it is out of order to refer to the business before the Privileges Committee. It is still dealing with the matter and we cannot discuss it here until we have had its report. There is no point of order on which I can help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will clarify what happens at the end of Parliament. May I formally refer the article by Mr. Foot, in the current issue of New Statesman, to the Privileges Committee for its consideration and a ruling tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must make a written application if he wishes to refer a matter to the Privileges Committee. I should then consider it and write to him with my decision. However, as he knows, it is rather late in the life of this Parliament.
Privileges applications are no longer made on the Floor of the House. They are made in writing to Mr. Speaker, who has time to consider them and can seek advice if he needs it.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances of the article, which is a major scrutiny of the behaviour of the Prime Minister in relation to the sinking of the Belgrano—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With every respect to the hon. Gentleman, we cannot discuss that now. There is nothing that I can do about it. I am afraid that he will have to wait.
It would be out of order for me to wish all hon. Members a safe return because I could not be impartial. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he cannot resume his point of order now. I am glad that he has raised the last point of order with which I must deal during my Speakership. But, quite honestly, I cannot help him. If, within our rules, it were possible for me to send his application to any Committee, I would do so. I cannot do anything more.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue at stake is the veracity of the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. He cannot persist with that point.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day—

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finished with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and I am now moving to the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

VARIATION OF RENT

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS (PENALTIES FOR CONTEMPT) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Extension)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983 which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
It might be for the convenience of the House if with this we were to take the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. If there is any objection, we must take the two orders separately. I judge that there is an objection.

Mr. Patten: This order, which is the ninth of its type to come before the House since 1975, extends the period of direct rule by 12 months until July 1984. When the House considered the equivalent order last year it was in the context of the detailed debate on the Bill that passed into law as the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
I was grateful, as was my right hon. Friend, for the compliments paid to some of my ministerial colleagues earlier this afternoon for the efficiency with which they have conducted direct rule. The Government recognise that, for all its virtues, direct rule does not provide a settled and stable framework for the long term. Therefore, the Assembly was set up in an attempt to respond to the particular needs of the Province. Meanwhile, however, the machinery of direct rule must be maintained and I commend the order to the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister said that tributes had been paid to others of the Northern Ireland Office ministerial team. If it appeared that he had been omitted, it was not intentional. If I remember correctly, it so happened that his subjects did not feature prominently in the selection of questions. May I, on behalf of those on this Bench and those who have been here, express appreciation for all that the Minister has done during the period that he has occupied his office in Northern Ireland? That goes for all who have to deal with health and social services and, perhaps more important, for the many customers of that vast Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and I have done all we could to persuade the Minister to accede to the many varied and sometimes extravagant requests of constituents. I do not say that the three of us have succeeded in giving them satisfaction, but we can claim that we have done our best, and I thank the Minister, those in his Department and his colleagues for all they have done to deal with the many human, social problems that have arisen in the Province during their term of office.
The Minister reminded us that we were being invited to renew the Northern Ireland Act 1974. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are well versed in the technical reasons why we must go through this operation once a year. We have renewed the Act on nine occasions. On each occasion the implication was that we were renewing it for another period of 12 months and that we might not be required to renew it further. We get a little weary of repeating the exercise, knowing perfectly well that we will not be in the happy position of avoiding the annual renewal.
It is not that we object to devoting our time to this necessary operation. My main objection to the renewal procedure is that we are giving to all and sundry, to trouble-makers — political and terrorist — a standing incentive to keep up their dirty work in the hope that they will eventually get their way. What could be more encouraging to terrorists than to say in effect, "Here we are assembled in the Parliament of the United Kingdom declaring that we will think about the future of Northern Ireland. In the meantime, we invite Parliament to extend Northern Ireland's membership of the United Kingdom for another 12 months."? Surely that must put in the minds of terrorists and those who wish us ill the notion that if they try hard in the succeeding 12 months they might bring about what they desire, which is the detachment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
No hon. Member, least of all anyone representing Northern Ireland, would disagree with the Minister when he says that direct rule is not an acceptable method of governing Northern Ireland. We have seen its failures and defects. Those hon. Members who have had to live and work closely with it recognise the defects more than other hon. Members. It is not a question of tinkering with direct rule. My aim and desire is to get rid of it.
Here I am not entering into what is supposed to be the larger argument of integration versus devolution. Instead of saying that we will go on with this ramshackle, unacceptable, unworkable system for another 12 months and try to convince people that it will work, we ought to address our minds to how we can make government work in Northern Ireland as it works in the rest of the United Kingdom. The short answer is to get rid of government by Orders in Council. That is not pushing Northern Ireland over the dam in regard to any future system of government, but simply acknowledging after 10 years, taking into account the first year after 1974, that the system is defective, unworkable and unacceptable and trying to decide what we can put in its place. We will not be in a strong position if we come back, as we probably will, to another Parliament to ask for the renewal of the temporary arrangement for the 10th, 11th, and 12th times. There will be no end to it.
My hon. Friends share my confusion over why Northern Ireland cannot be included in more Great Britain Bills, thereby making them United Kingdom Bills. Some say that that would disturb and distort the pattern of the old Stormont statute book and thereby destroy the integrity of that package of statute law, but that is an imaginary objection. The law under which Northern Ireland has been governed for 50 years has been based on statutes made, presumably, in the old Irish Parliament, in Parliaments of the United Kingdom, in Stormont itself and now by Order in Council in this Parliament.
There is another argument. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were not compelled to observe a position of neutrality in these matters you would agree that when the Government of the day want to they can conveniently arrange for Northern Ireland to be covered by an Act of Parliament. Those of us who sit up late at night can remember an experience many years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I were about to take ourselves off after the main business of the day had been concluded. When we looked at a Bill which did not mention Northern Ireland in its title,

we made the surprising discovery that not only did it include Northern Ireland, but that it related to Northern Ireland alone. It was concerned with company insurance.
The Bill had been drafted and introduced because the European Parliament in Brussels, which likes to consider itself the superior body in the Economic Community—which you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not concede — had directed that insurance legislaion should be common throughout each member country, though not necessarily throughout the EC.
The Commission had laid down that there could not be two sets of insurance legislation within the same nation, and, hey presto, the Government of the day decided that they had better carry out the orders of Brussels and bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the member states. They probably thought, "We shall not say anything about it. We shall not make too much fuss. After all, we have said over the years that we cannot introduce Bills for Northern Ireland alone, as that would violate the integrity of the Stormont statute book." Accordingly, a Bill that dealt with Northern Ireland alone passed through all its stages in one evening. That destroyed for ever, in our minds at least, the myth that the United Kingdom Government cannot safely, properly and respectably legislate for Northern Ireland except by Order in Council.
We must come to terms with this problem. We must stop pretending. Whatever the future holds for Stormont and Northern Ireland in a legislative sense—whether we have, as we hope, a devolved structure at Stormont, a real structure similar to that which was taken away in 1972, or whether we move in another direction — such issues have nothing to do with the argument that if we are to claim that we are governing Northern Ireland from this House we must carry out that process of government by means of a system no different from that under which England, Scotland and Wales are governed as components of the United Kingdom.
We must get rid of the fatal defect—it is one which costs lives—of this one-year-at-a-time approach. Surely the time has come to get rid of the notion—it is one that we have implanted in the minds of many undesirables —that we are merely renewing the lease on Northern Ireland for 12 months. It constitutes a standing invitation to them to carry out their murders and campaign of disruption. They may well think that if they can sustain the momentum they will ultimately get their way. Nothing would do more to dishearten and demoralise—

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Gentleman is surely not suggesting that if the Act were dropped, as it were, terrorist activity would suddenly cease.

Mr. Molyneaux: I have not said that there could be a guarantee that it would cease. However, if I were involved in terrorist operations and were determined to achieve the objective that is shared by many who claim that they do not support terrorist objectives, I should take great encouragement and great heart from the spectacle of Her Majesty's Government renewing the order year after year. We are being invited to make the ninth renewal and we shall be invited to do so for the 10th time next year. In effect, we are saying, "We shall not do anything permanent about Northern Ireland. We shall merely extend the lease."
We are not talking about a 99-year lease. The lease is nothing like as generous as one might expect for a flat in


London. We are being asked to hold Northern Ireland on a 12-month lease. There is the clear implication—this is how it appears to the terrorists—that if the undesirables try their damnedest they might succeed in their objective.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has been the custom of the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), on the many occasions when he has commended Northern Ireland orders to the House, to explain the reasons why the orders have been laid before us. It was noticeable that he failed to do so today.
It must strike hon. Members as surprising that this is such essential business before dissolution tomorrow that these two pieces of Northern Ireland legislation have to be pushed in at this almost last gasp.
As the Minister did not enlighten the House, I think it right that the reasons should be understood. They are not uninstructive and they should, perhaps, be understood outside the House as well as inside it. The order is required by 16 July and the following order is required by 26 July. We are to have a general election on 9 June and not 9 July. After making due allowance for Her Majesty to open Parliament and for a debate, which might be protracted, upon the Queen's Speech, it must occur to anyone engaging in the computation, either with a calendar or with his fingers, that there should be plenty of time after the Queen's Speech is disposed of in the first Session of the new Parliament, for this business to be taken. Why, then, do we have to complete this business before the present Parliament comes to an end?
I put aside the unworthy notion that the business might be likely to pass with less comment, less debate and less opposition—the same argument applies to the following order—if the business is slipped through at a time when hon. Members are anxious to be in their constituencies. I have reason for thinking—if I am mistaken, I am sure that the Minister will correct me when he replies—that the Government are not sure that there will be time between 9 June and 16 July for this business to be taken by the future House of Commons.
There is only one set of circumstances that might cause the Government to be in doubt about that, but it is for the Minister to produce what in his view are the real circumstances that the Government have in mind in which there might not be time between 9 June and 16 July to get through all the requisite initial proceedings in a new Parliament and to direct our attention to this renewal order. Those circumstances are that it might prove difficult to form an Administration based upon the House that will be returned on 9 June.
Your knowledge of history, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will assist you to recall that on a number of occasions Governments have been returned with a minority. Nevertheless, they have tried their fortune—they are constitutionally entitled to do so — and have suffered defeat on the Division on the Queen's Speech. So behind all the brassy, hubristic self-confidence which we have at Question Time, and which is publicly exhibited by the Government, that they will return with a triumphant majority, here in the comparative privacy of this debate is

the evidence that they are far from sure that they will be able to command before 16 July a House of Commons that will take this business.
It seems that they are asking the House to deal with this business in the event of there not being a Government in the House of Commons after 9 June, and before the expiry of the order, who are capable of dealing with the business. Hon. Members should remember that we are talking about 26 July as well as 16 July because there is an order to follow the one that we are now discussing. The Government are putting up this business now to make sure of it.
I have done my best to supply the omission in the Minister's speech. It is up to him to explain whether my conjecture is correct. If it is not, let him explain how there cannot be sufficient time between 9 June, the general election, and 26 July, or a day or two before that for safety, to deal with the second order, not to mention the first, for which the annual period elapses on 16 July.
What would be the consequences if the order were not passed? Northern Ireland would still remain part of the United Kingdom. The position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom does not depend on the statute which is renewed by the order. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom because it is represented in this House. It is included in the definition of the United Kingdom which stands on the statute book. Therefore, if we sweep this away, as it deserves, the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom will remain unaffected. There is no need for anxiety or alarm under that head.
What would be different? The law would in future have to be made for Northern Ireland in the same way as it is made for any other part of the United Kingdom. We are invited to pass the order today so that Northern Ireland may continue to be legislated for differently from the United Kingdom, and I will specify the respects in which the difference exists and which is maintained by the order but which would disappear if the House decides, as I trust it will, not to pass it.
First, we should have the same control over subordinate legislation applying to Northern Ireland as all hon. Members have over subordinate legislation which applies to their constituencies. The Importation of Milk Act, which we passed two days ago, contains a clause which contains a lie. The lie is that orders made under the provisions of that measure are subject to parliamentary procedure, some being subject to the negative and others to the affirmative procedure, but that is a lie.
Those who are briefed—I do not think the Minister from the Department of Trade would have been briefed on what is an arcane point—and those of us in the know appreciate that the statute which is being renewed by the order neutralises what the House did in that clause on Tuesday and provides that, whereas there would be an opportunity of praying against an order if it were made for the rest of the United Kingdom, there shall be no opportunity—the negative procedure is wiped out—for Northern Ireland.
Whereas in the rest of the United Kingdom there would be the necessity of an affirmative order, if it applies to Northern Ireland we take our chance on the grace of the Administration to find time, perhaps in Committee, for us to discuss it formally on a formal resolution which would have no effect if it were passed. Thus, the first effect of what we will do if the House is so unwise as to approve


the order today is to continue to deprive Northern Ireland of those safeguards on delegated, subordinate, legislation which apply to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The second and major effect of the order is to preserve legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. It will enable the law in Northern Ireland to be made not as it is made for the rest of the United Kingdom, by procedure by Bill in such a manner that the Bill can be amended, that its individual parts can be taken separately, that it can be explained, discussed, altered if necessary, with an opportunity for reconsideration on Report and for continued debate in another place in the light of what has happened here or in another place.
None of that holds for Northern Ireland because of the legislation that is renewed by this order. Legislation by Order in Council is renewed by the order, not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, because there is no other way of legislating for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland can be, and is, included in United Kingdom legislation, just as Wales and Scotland are. We have instances of that. But as my hon. Friend observed, not without justifiable bitterness, those other instances arise where the requirement to legislate has been enforced on Parliament from outside as a result of that deplorable servitude which this House suffers as a result of our membership of the European Community. Therefore, nothing stands in the way of our turning out this order tonight. Legislation will continue for Northern Ireland as and when necessary, as it continues for any part, or the whole, of the United Kingdom, except that it would have to be done in the proper way, by Act of Parliament.
It may be said, and while I hope that the Government will not say it, I give them the opportunity to do so, "Yes, but you are so unimportant that you do not deserve a clause, not even an application schedule, in a United Kingdom Bill. Now that we have this 1974 procedure, we shall go on renewing it every year so that instead of having to treat Northern Ireland in this respect like every other part of the country, we can continue to do it by order. After a superficial debate—of one and a half hours, or a little more by accident or grace — with no possibility of amendment, that will be the end of the matter, and that is how you will be treated."
If it is for the sake of saving the time of the House, let the Minister say so. Far from the order and the renewal procedure by Order in Council saving the time of the House, it wastes it, because it means that whatever we legislate for Great Britain or any part of it and wish to apply to Northern Ireland, we must apply completely separately, with the whole bureaucratic—drafting and so on — process repeated. That means our keeping the House up at an unreasonable hour so as not to trench upon time with Orders in Council applying to Northern Ireland. If it is the object of the Government to save time, let them deal with legislation which applies to Ulster as they deal with that which applies to the north-west, north-east, south-east or County Durham.
Hon. Members on these Benches do not claim more time than our fellow Members. We claim only as much as they enjoy, as of right—the opportunity to discuss the principle of a Bill which is to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom when it is first applied. Let us take our chance. We may not get called on Second Reading, but let us at least have the opportunity to take part in debate on the principle of the legislation, instead of being told, "This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland; look at the

application clause. This is a Great Britain Bill. What are you doing here trying to take part in the debate, taking time away from other Members?"
Let us take our share, with the rest of the United Kingdom to which we belong, in establishing the principle. Then we should be able to consider, with the rest of hon. Members on the Floor or in Committee, clause by clause, those enactments which are to become articles of an Order in Council—as a result of the order that is before the House — unalterable, undiscussable and unamendable. We should be able to listen to the arguments. We might be able to throw our weight in favour of those who wanted to amend them. Our voice along with other parts of the kingdom could be heard.
I will not dilate further on the subject. It surely is superfluous to argue before this House the merits of the way in which we have legislated over the centuries. Do not deprive us, by this order at the end of this Parliament, of the right to be legislated for in exactly the same way. We are saying, "Let us be treated like anyone else. Let legislation and subordinate legislation in the Province be like legislation and subordinate legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom." We ask no more. We shall be satisfied with no less.
I give notice, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, that we shall not go on indefinitely putting up with this order being renewed year after year. The Minister may say, "What sort of language is this? Are they threats and bluster that the right hon. Gentleman is uttering?" Not at all. We are going to use—

Mr. John Patten: rose—

Mr. Powell: I shall answer my question and then the Minister may intervene. We shall use the method by which Members of the House and parties of the House will be applying in general throughout the coming election campaign. We shall say to those whom we represent, "Are you or are you not in favour of the continuance of this annual renewal of direct rule?" We shall say to them, "We, for our part, are against it. In your name and with your backing we shall present the petition which, with your backing, attains the strength of demand, that we shall no longer be subject to the consequences of this renewal order of the 1974 Act."
Having thus considered what will be the consequences if, as I trust, this order is not passed, let me mention one thing which will not be the consequence; there will be no inhibition upon the introduction into the House and the passage, if the House agrees, through the House of any such form of government for Northern Ireland as, in its wisdom, it may decide. If it decides, as it did for instance in the previous Parliament, that there ought to be some form of legislative or other devolution in Northern Ireland unknown to the rest of the kingdom, then nothing in this order will assist the House in doing so; nothing, if this order is not passed, will inhibit the House from doing so.
We are not, therefore, concerned with any proposals or counter-proposals concerned with the future constitution and government of Northern Ireland. We are concerned simply with removing a legitimate grievance under which the people of Northern Ireland have suffered these past nine years. It was a hasty Bill cobbled together by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Perhaps the first time it was permissible to say, "Give it another year. That is all right. Let it pass for another year." We should


be highly culpable and reprehensible if, year after year, we sat idly by and allowed these provisions to be renewed and allowed this deprivation of those whom we represent to be continued.
Sir, if such thoughts ever passed through the mind of the Chair, you must have wondered, after this argumentation, what can possibly be the reason why the Government proceed to maintain the 1974 Act and this misbegotten annual progeny of that Act. You might say, "What is in it for them?" Sir, it is now 11 years since I remember standing over there and telling the House to its face that the prime responsibility for the bloodshed, loss of life and destruction in Northern Ireland lay with the House. I have never wavered in that opinion. The responsibility and the blame lies here. We incur it in the way in which I told the House then we incurred it—I know it seems very funny to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who sits there sniggering when the agony of Northern Ireland and its true causes are being discussed. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has nothing better to do than to snigger when these matters are being discussed in the House. He would do better—

Rev. Ian Paisley: What about the time the right hon. Gentleman went into the Lobby to support this Act and the Labour party? Let us get the truth of the matter.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman would do better to stay away and abuse this House and Parliament from long range instead of coming here to make a mockery of it by his presence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall be back when the right hon. Gentleman will not.

Mr. Powell: When those remarks are finished, and Nemesis will have heard them, I return to tell the House how it is responsible for the continuance of bloodshed in Northern Ireland, made itself so early, and has continued since. The ambivalence of its treatment of that Province is an invitation to the assumption that, if not of the Government or the House, there is somewhere an underlying dominant purpose to find a way to get rid of Ulster out of the United Kingdom and to form an all-Ireland state of which Ulster would form a part. This farce that we are going through now—the renewal of the 1974 Act—is part of that ambivalent action. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South was right. It has been avowed from time to time.
The excuse that is given for denying Ulster the rights of the same processes of legislation as of the rest of the country is that we want to keep the Northern Ireland statute book separate. What would anyone think was the virtue of keeping the Northern Ireland statute book separate? It is not upon the assumption that there will be a restoration of the Government and Parliament which existed before 1972. That is not what it is about. That is not what has entered into the Government's mind, nor that of any Government since 1972. It is in order that the Province may be treated so separately, legislatively and in other respects from the rest of the United Kingdom, that its transfer, its easing across into a different context, into a different nexus—a nexus with the Irish Republic—shall be facilitated.
Those who watch events in Northern Ireland and watch the mind of Government in relation to Northern Ireland do not mistake the purpose. Every time we renew this order they say, "Yes, it is all right. The Government or their advisers are still persisting upon course. Sooner or later, if we keep on with the violence and keep up the pressure there will be that combination which, throughout his life, de Valera said would be the way to unite Ireland—a combination of Ulster autonomy, separation and the English interest—and which will produce the intended result".
There is no continuance of terrorism without the prospect of success. Terrorism feeds on hope. Terrorism feeds on the realistic degree of achieving its aims. There is no terrorism where there is no prospect or invitation, but here there is invitation. This order is part of the invitation — which the British Government issue annually — to those who desire by force and terror to prise Ulster out of the United Kingdom to carry on because the enduring purpose it spells out of the British Government is the same as theirs.
This is not only a constitutionally indefensible order, in the sense that it deprives the people of part of the United Kingdom of rights to which they are entitled, but it is an evil order, because it is part of that ambivalence by Government and Parliament on which feeds the violence that destroys and harasses our fellow citizens. Let us throw it out. If it is not thrown out in this Parliament, there will come a Parliament when it is thrown out.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has spoken as a constitutionalist. I speak as a representative of people who have suffered at the evil hands of IRA terrorists. I speak as one who has to deal with the problems of the Ulster people — those seeking homes, those living in substandard homes and those protesting about the rates burden and the potholes in the road, which their money does not seem able to repair.
I speak on behalf of those who want places in schools for their children and a future for those children when they leave school. I speak on behalf of those who are looking for beds in hospitals, for the injured and the elderly. I speak not as a "constitutionalist", but as one voicing the opinions, hopes and fears of the Ulster people.
I have been dissatisfied with direct rule, for reasons which I have fervently and frequently expressed in the House and outside over the past nine years. All of us recognise that it is a most unsatisfactory way to rule any part of the United Kingdom. It is unacceptable that we should not be able to amend the Orders in Council, that we often debate them late at night and that there is a time limit on those debates.
However, I shall support the renewal of the Act which allows the continuation of direct rule, and I shall do so without hesitation or apology to the House, the people of Northern Ireland or the constitutionalists who bare their hearts to the Chamber as though they were protecting Parliament and the people from a terrible evil. The evil in Northern Ireland is clear enough, and constitutionalists will not protect the people from gunmen or from the activities of the bureaucrats who have governed Northern Ireland for far too long.
I support the renewal of the Act, because we have a Northern Ireland Assembly. It may fail—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has nothing to do with the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: I do not want the right hon. Member for Down, South to criticise my remarks.

Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilfedder: No. I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Powell: It does not depend on the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: I do not want instruction from the right hon. Gentleman. I have great respect for his intellectual capacity, but the Ulster people put more store by common sense and what we call gumption. Gumption has been lacking in what the right hon. Gentleman has said in the House on behalf of his constituents. I believe that they disagree with him.
We have a Northern Ireland Assembly—

Mr. Powell: Not because of the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Assembly was created only about six months ago.

Mr. Powell: It has nothing to do with the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman says that it has nothing to do with the order, but he wants to destroy the Northern Ireland Parliament. He wants the doors of the Stormont Parliament building locked and barred against the Ulster people. That is not what the Ulster people want. I speak the truth and the right hon. Gentleman remains silent.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to enable me to point out that the failure to renew the order would not affect the operation of the 1982 Act, which, together with the 1973 Act, brought the Assembly into existence.

Mr. Kilfedder: We listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in silence. I hope that he will allow me to make my short speech in relative silence. I am sorry that he did not offer himself to the people of Down, South as a candidate for the Assembly. Perhaps he would have learnt the value of the work being done by many Official Unionists, including some from his constituency, who are eager to see the Assembly succeed.
Behind everything that the right hon. Gentleman says — he dresses it up in constitutional and highfalutin language, but the truth is plain to the Ulster people—is the fact that he wants the lights to go out in Stormont. If that happens as a result of the activities of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, it will cause great anger among the Ulster people. The reasons for that are simple, but the right hon. Gentleman may not understand them, because he is not aware of the sufferings and hardships of the ordinary men, women and children who live in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: Where does the hon. Gentleman live?

Mr. Kilfedder: The Northern Ireland Assembly was brought into being six months ago. It may fail, but let us give it a reasonable chance. It has already proved a valuable means of permitting elected representatives to question and to scrutinise the bureaucracy which has arrogantly spread its dictatorial hand over Northern Ireland.
I am confident that, given a reasonable chance, the Northern Ireland Assembly will progress to a second stage,

when executive and legislative powers will be devolved to it. That progress depends largely on elected members, not only in the Assembly, but in this House, proving by their responsibility and dedication to the Ulster people that they are worthy of having additional duties and responsibilities devolved to them. That is the way forward for government and administration in the Province.
It would be ridiculous to vote against the order. Of course, those who oppose the very existence of the Northern Ireland Assembly and wish to bring it to an end do not say that directly, honestly, frankly and clearly to the Ulster people. They speak of making Northern Ireland no different from any other part of the United Kingdom and of wanting laws in Great Britain to apply fully and immediately to Northern Ireland. However, they would be the first people to attack the Government and the innocent Under-Secretary who opened the debate if they said that the British laws on divorce, abortion and homosexuality were to apply forthwith in Northern Ireland. They would immediately knock on the door of the Northern Ireland Office. Their representatives here would attack the Government for their audacity in changing the law in Northern Ireland. That shows the fraudulent arguments that they put forward in this Chamber.
The argument is not about timing, but about the very existence of Stormont. I do not wish to prolong the debate. It is with the greatest reluctance that I support the order, but I support it clearly and happily in one sense, because I am positive that the Northern Ireland Assembly will succeed.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman said that it may fail.

Mr. Kilfedder: It may fail, but I am confident that it will succeed. It will succeed because—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues scorn and scoff at those who work so hard in the Assembly, and particularly in the Committees, which spend hours scrutinising Northern Ireland legislation and questioning Northern Ireland Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Down, South says that he and his colleagues will fight the coming general election on this issue. He is naive or else contemptuous of the Ulster people if he thinks that he can bring this argument to Ulster and win. The Ulster people will react angrily if he is honest and frank in his declarations. However, he will not speak directly on the subject but will talk about the iniquity of direct rule and claim that he wants the old Stormont back, with all its old powers forthwith, but if that does not happen he would rather have complete integration.
The campaign of terror by the IRA will not be brought to an end by the complete integration of Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. If that were possible, I would vote with the right hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby at the end of the debate, but that will not happen. I speak as one whose family has suffered at the hands of the IRA. Therefore, I can speak for all those who have suffered, and I have visited many of them. Sadly, there are other hon. Members who have had far more constituents injured or killed as a result of the activities of the terrorists —those evil men who are manifestations of Satan In Northern Ireland. They will not end their campaign of violence because of the constitutional arguments that the right hon. Gentleman has advanced this afternoon. They will not end their campaign of terrorism as long as


Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. They want to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. It does not matter whether this order is renewed. It is senseless to say, as the right hon. Gentleman has, that the renewal of this order will allow for the continuation of terrorism.
I feel passionately about this matter, and I make no apology for voicing the feelings of the Ulster people. If the Assembly fails we can look at the matter again, but we have to give the Assembly and the Assembly Members a reasonable time to do their work.

Mr. Powell: That has nothing to do with the order.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying that, so I know that his party's election campaign will be fought on a false prospectus. The Ulster people do not like direct rule, but they see in the work of the Committees in Northern Ireland proper scrutiny of legislation and an attempt to influence Government thinking. We see the possibility of moving to greater powers.
One example of this is that the problems of Northern Ireland housing were dismissed in a few hours upstairs in the Northern Ireland Committee, in a most unsatisfactory way. The Northern Ireland Assembly Committee has been able to spend hours debating the problems and intends to return to the matter time after time. Therefore, I shall vote, without any apology and without any shame, for the renewal of the order.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have just seen the opening shots being fired in the general election in Northern Ireland, and from what you have seen you will readily admit that we shall see an election with the maximum amount of finesse and decorum. This has been brought about by the decision of the Labour Government to increase the number of Northern Ireland seats from 12 to 17.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has at least been consistent. He has advanced once again his argument for complete integration.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No, I have not.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman has done it very subtly and has argued that the order does not mean anything. The order may not mean anything to him in the constitutional sense in which he puts his argument, but if the order were not passed it would have the completely opposite effect from that which he has suggested. The IRA would then say, "We are on the road to total integration." Non-renewing of the order would escalate the violence.
I do not believe the suggestion made at Question Time that every time that the Secretary of State has a meeting with the Taoiseach in the Republic or with any Republic Minister the IRA goes out of its way to escalate the campaign of violence. That is clearly incorrect. The IRA has an objective that is not affected by the order or the debate or by the meetings between British Government Ministers and the Ministers in the Irish Republic. The IRA has its objective and will persist with that objective irrespective of what views may be expounded in the House.
The right hon. Member for Down, South can be respected for his intellect but not for his vivid imagination.

He said that the Government were having the order debated today because they were frightened of the result of the forthcoming general election and that they were not too sure of being re-elected, and suggested that Unionist Members might hold the balance of power in the new Parliament and would prevent the Government from reintroducing the Act. However, whatever party is returned, it will make no difference. A Labour Government first introduced the legislation, and a Conservative Government have reintroduced it every year. Therefore, the 10, 11, 12, 15 or perhaps a hell of a lot fewer Ulster Unionist Members will have no effect on whatever Government result from the next election.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why are we debating the order now?

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman asks why we are having the debate now. His memory need take him back only to the day before the summer recess, or the day before the Easter recess, or the day before the various holidays that the House has had for him to remember that we always debate Northern Ireland on that day—something that I have always resented. All the Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen are away home. I am sure that there are hon. Members running up and down the corridors bitterly resenting the right hon. Gentleman because he has warned them that they have to stay here when they want to be away getting their election addresses to the printers.
I include everyone here, because we may be hearing more than one valedictory speech in the House today.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it was the right hon. Member for Down, South who blackmailed the Labour Government, with their very small majority, when he used all his considerable powers of persuasion to force a reluctant Government to arrange a Speaker's Conference with a view to increasing the number of Northern Ireland constituencies from 12 to 17. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman realised that the constituency which he represented then would be very different from the one that he will contest in the coming general election.
If the divisions in the House that we see today are anything to go by, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman will have more than one opponent in his constituency. It may be that the animosity, hostility and political disagreement that is so evident in the House today will ensure that there is a Democratic Unionist candidate, together with an Official Unionist candidate, a Sinn Fein candidate and an SDLP candidate. The right hon. Gentleman may not be back, and we shall watch this space with interest when the nomination papers are deposited in Downpatrick town hall on nomination day.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When is that?

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Member for Down, South is right. In effect, the order separates Northern Ireland from the other parts of the United Kingdom. The order proclaims loudly to the heavens that Northern Ireland is different. It is not like Scotland, Wales and England. Who in his right senses would say that Northern Ireland was no different from the other parts of the United Kingdom? We do not have soldiers and police with guns and armoured vehicles in Scotland, England and Wales, even though we see a disturbing trend in certain events occurring in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Fortunately, people are not being killed in the other parts of the United Kingdom.


The atrocious, bitter and ruthless murders that have happened in Northern Ireland do not occur in any other part of the United Kingdom. We do not need a standing army to keep the peace in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is different, no matter how much the right hon. Member for Down, South says that it is not.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I did not say that.

Mr. Fitt: The order was introduced into Parliament after the downfall of the Sunningdale Executive. I believe honestly, fervently and sincerely that there is no hope for peace in Northern Ireland if we proceed along the path plotted for us by the right hon. Member for Down, South, which is one of total integration. That will never bring peace to Northern Ireland.
The Sunningdale agreement was the best possible hope for Northern Ireland—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There you are.

Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman mutters, "There you are," as though the Sunningdale agreement was a source of shame. I do not believe that that agreement is anything to be ashamed of. It was reached by politicians with conflicting political ideals who sat down together and tried to resolve the dilemma of Northern Ireland and to bring about an Executive that would act in the interests of the whole community. I do not apologise for that. I would not apologise for it even if I thought that this might he my last speech in the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It could be.

Mr. Fitt: I have tried to represent my viewpoint honourably, irrespective of IRA murderers or others who object to the political views for which I stand. I cling tenaciously to the belief that the only hope of peace and progress in Northern Ireland is by the reinstitution of something akin to the Sunningdale Executive.
It is important that we should renew the order. I have no great feeling for rushing into the Division Lobby to support an order which continues direct rule. Direct rule has many defects. But when I listen to some of the schizophrenic speeches by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, it occurs to me that it is a very good idea that the Speaker of this House does not have to fight elections. If he did, he might have to show that he was not as impartial as he claimed to be. We have just heard a speech by the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). If anyone doubted the impartiality of the hon. Gentleman, his doubts would have been underlined today.

Mr. Kilfedder: From time to time, the occupant of the Chair has to fight an election. I seem to remember that our present Speaker was opposed by a Welsh nationalist candidate in the last general election. But I think that I speak on behalf of all dedicated Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly when I say that everyone wants that Assembly to survive. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) ought to recognise that. I occupy the Chair in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but my position over there has nothing to do with this House. My view is that when I occupy the Chair there I ought to give expression on behalf of all those hon. Members to what they think.

Mr. Fitt: I am not arguing with the hon. Member for Down, North. What I am about to say will reinforce my

attitude. Incidentally, I do not remember the hon Member for Down, North or any of his colleagues voting for the establishment of the Assembly. I was the only Northern Ireland Member to vote for it. I wanted to see that Assembly come into operation in Northern Ireland, with all its defects, in the hope that everyone who was elected to that Assembly would discuss Northern Ireland affairs with his fellow Members.
I have read some recent election literature published by the party which I formerly led, the SDLP. It spoke of a tale of three cities—Strasbourg, Washington and Dublin—and described how these meetings were taking place in those three cities with the intention of determining the future of Northern Ireland. In my view, that is foolish. In fact, it is positively dangerous. The only place where the future of Northern Ireland can be decided is Northern Ireland itself.
That was why I supported the proposal to establish the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that Assembly should be allowed to remain in being, no matter what the fate of this Government may be, so that it is a forum which allows representatives of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland to try, however difficult it may be, to find some political accommodation which speaks with one voice for Northern Ireland. That is the only voice that will drive the terrorists into oblivion. No matter what is said here, in Washington, in Strasbourg or in Dublin —indeed, many of the statements made there could spark off the terrorists — it is the people of Northern Ireland in their own Parliament speaking with a united voice who will instil fear into the hearts of the IRA and all the other paramilitary organisations.
It is necessary to renew the order. I shall vote for it not because I want to see a continuation of direct rule but because I believe that, if it were defeated, it would be a green light to every terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland to take to their own trenches.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In these final debates on Northern Ireland at the end of this Parliament it should be said loudly and clearly for the people of Northern Ireland that they know that their destiny is in their own hands, and I thank God for that.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who pins his faith on this Parliament and the destiny of my people on what this Parliament does, I pin my faith on the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What about Sinn Fein?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that, because he is the man who indicts the founders of Northern Ireland — the Carsons and the Craigavons, who rejected the Parliament of the United Kingdom when it passed its Home Rule Act. They not only rejected it, but armed the people of Northern Ireland to reject it. Thank God that the right hon. Member for Down, South was not leading the people of Ulster then, because if he had been they would have been sadly betrayed and sold to the enemy.
There are people in Northern Ireland who have faith in themselves. The right hon. Member for Down, South tells me not to come back to the House. He would like to hold the key. He would like to hold the ropes and close the door to people who disagree with him, but when the election


comes the people of Northern Ireland will return to the House those whom they wish to represent them. No Northern Ireland Member will have the right to say who shall come back and who shall not. That will be decided, thank God, by the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, about whom the right hon. Gentleman is completely ignorant. They are from a different place and a different race, they hold different convictions and he knows nothing about them.

Mr. Powell: They elect me.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not for any Member of the House to tell me that I should not be allowed here because of my attitude to this place when it touches the core and vitals of Ulster people — the need to ensure that the people of Ulster are never subjected to government from Dublin and that no Dublin Government ever have any jurisdiction over them. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that if this Parliament, the next Parliament or any other Parliament decides that that is to be the lot of the people of Ulster, they will utterly reject that and will fight to the death to see that Ulster remains outside the Republic. They will have no help from the right hon. Gentleman and his kind but, thank God, they will not need it. They will stand as they have always stood—with courage, strength and determination in their own convictions.

Mr. Powell: And they elect me.

Rev. Ian Paisley: To use a slogan well known to the Ulster people, but unknown to the right hon. Member for Down, South, they know that their cause is good and will be maintained.
On this final day of this Parliament I make no apology for any action that I have taken in my political career to defend the right of the Ulster people to remain outside a united Ireland. I make no apologies for the stoppages in which I took part and in which the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends took part on one occasion. I make that clear. I do not stand here as a penitent or a Cinderella weeping in this House as though Ulster should not be allowed to be represented here. I am part of the United Kingdom and I am entitled to come to this House if I am elected to it.
I am glad that there is freedom in this House to express the views that I hold and that the keys of this Parliament do not dangle at the belt of the right hon. Member for Down, South. If the Official Unionist party were the monolithic structure that it once was and wielded the power that it then had, there would no Democratic Unionists in this House. In those days an Official Unionist could pile up a majority of 42,000 in Antrim, North, but I dared to challenge the sanctuary and to refuse to help a man who said in this House that the B Specials and the things in which Ulster believed had to go. I dared to challenge that position, and I remember the campaign that the right hon. Gentleman's party mounted against me.

Mr. Fitt: They put the hon. Gentleman in goal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I was in goal twice and I have no penance to make or tears to weep about that.
The people of Northern Ireland will exercise their rights. The old days when Glengall street could threaten a man's job have gone. I remember a man who fought the Official Unionists and who was driven to suicide by the power wielded by the man in Glengall street— Billy

Douglas. He ensured that that man was removed from his position as manager of Inglis bakery, and when he moved across the road to Mc Water's bakery, he had him removed from there as well. He had that man hounded until he committed suicide, for the crime of daring to oppose an Official Unionist candidate.
I have opposed Official Unionist candidates and I have survived. I am confident that when I go to the electorate they will vote not for the policies advocated here today by the right hon. Member for Down, South but for the policies that I have advocated in this House and which the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues advocate with vigour when they are in Northern Ireland.
In a debate in the Assembly we heard to our surprise that the right hon. Gentleman was no longer the deputy leader of the parliamentary party here. We had always been told that he was the deputy leader, but when that was said in the Assembly it was quickly pointed out that he was no longer the deputy leader.

Mr. Powell: Who is, then?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues would not tell us, although we presed them to tell us when the demise took place, when the removal occurred and on what occasion the arguments were put. Perhaps they will inform this House who is their deputy leader.

Mr. Powell: Who is it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know who is the deputy leader here. Elsewhere it is the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). Perhaps they will tell us who it is here.

Mr. Powell: Yes, who is it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Do not keep asking the question—stand up and tell us the answer.

Mr. Powell: There is not one.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman has been sacked and the post declared obsolete. That is one way to make out that they did not sack him. As the office no longer existed, he had to go. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the reason, so I shall leave the matter there.
I see a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Labour Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).

Mr. Fitt: He has not said a word.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South knows that I have continually opposed direct rule and that I have continually shouted against the passage of these measures, but no one would support me. I shall tell the House a story which the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to hear.
A day came on which this order could have been defeated. In an early morning debate we discovered that the Labour party did not have enough Members here to get it through. Being Ulstermen, we decided to press the matter to a Division, but not to vote ourselves because we did not wish to make up the required number. Our places in the Lobby would be vacant and they would have to go searching in bars and other places which I do not frequent to try to find enough people.
The House divided and the Labour party could have been defeated had not the right hon. Gentleman, accompanied by his leader—I know, because I followed


them — given a pledge to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who said that if he needed their votes to get the order through they were at his disposal. Then they come to the House today and tell us that they have great convictions about this issue.

Mr. Molyneaux: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way in a moment when I have finished my point.

Mr. Fitt: What year was that?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall find out. We can get all the details. I remember that occasion. I remember the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) saying to me, "You know, Ian, if that Bill had been defeated it would have been a terrible thing." Northern Ireland would have been ungovernable if they had not had the necessary numbers. Eventually they did get them, but it was a pity that they did not need the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, Central and for St. Pancras, North because if they had been needed, how they voted would have been on the record.
I would accept it if those who are opposing this measure today had consistently voted against it, but we are on the eve of an election. We are against direct rule. It is an abominable thing. Nobody has cried out more against it than I have. But the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not accurate—

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman keep his undertaking to give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I wish. I have not finished my point. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall give way when I have finished this important point. I have been told by the Clerks of the House that we have until 11.30. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the House as late as he can. I am sure that it is part of an exercise to embarrass the Government. The longer it goes on, the better for him and his party. I know that I am right. I know what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I did not sit for years as a deputy leader of the group that he led without knowing what was in his mind. I have learnt a little of his devious ways.
It is not true that Scotland is ruled exactly like every other part of the United Kingdom. It is not true that every part of the United Kingdom is ruled in the same way. Because Scotland is different, it does not make it any less a part of the United Kingdom, and the same applies to Northern Ireland and Wales. The hon. Member for Belfast, West should recognise that.

Mr. Molyneaux: When the hon. Gentleman reflects, he will recall that I patiently explained to him why we could not and dare not vote against either the Northern Ireland Act 1974 or any of its subsequent renewals until this year. The reason for that was and is that had we defeated the renewal order we would have gone straight back to the power-sharing position of 1973. This is the first occasion on which we can vote against and, I hope, defeat this renewal order without such a consequence.
Furthermore, to clear up a point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier, there is no change in the position of the Assembly. If the order is defeated tonight, as I hope it will be, the Assembly will continue and develop. Once

the 1982 Act is changed, this order will have nothing to do with the controversy between devolution and integration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is a nice explanation, but it does not wash with me or with anybody else. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not deny what I said.

Mr. Molyneaux: Just because I did not want the 1973 Act.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is prepared to vote against this measure. I shall say why the timing is so important. It is because there is to be an election. Accusations will be made in that election and evidence produced that his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South has continually opposed Stormont. He opposed it even when it was controlled by the Official Unionist Government. He says that it has to go because he views the Kingdom as one, as I do. But he goes further and says that we can be ruled by only one Parliament. I tell those hon. Members who criticised us for voting against the hon. Gentleman's amendment to the amending legislation that I did so because it was an amendment to an obnoxious Act which I completely opposed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West was put into power by that Act. It made him the Deputy Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. It was another devious move to give the kiss of death. What better propaganda could the Sinn Feiners have than to hold up the Orange Standard and say, "They say 'Vote for Gerry Fitt'"? Nothing could be more destructive, and perhaps that is why it was done. I do not know, but I know that no Unionist who would vote for me would vote for the hon. Member for Belfast, West, as he well knows.
I say that truthfully to the hon. Gentleman today. I have had many differences with him, as he knows. He knows my attitude to earlier remarks that were made, but we shall not go into that now because it is water under the bridge. He knows that the Unionists whom I represent will not be putting out in any paper over which I have any control a call for people to vote for him. That might bring some succour to him today. I want to make it clear that I shall not be doing that. That is not my attitude.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On this penultimate day—I cannot resist Northern Ireland debates—may I have one question answered? I ask it with all the innocence of someone who has been involved in Northern Ireland politics. The hon. Gentleman is against integration, and so am I. Was the hon. Gentleman ever in favour of integration? It matters to me because otherwise I shall have to obliterate something that I have written.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman in private that when Stormont fell we should have returned to our proper position within the United Kingdom. We should never have been kept in limbo. The negotiations could then have taken place, but that was denied. Then the Unionists of Northern Ireland came together and formed the United Ulster Unionists Council. They hammered out a united policy. [Interruption.] It did not correct me at all because I have pulled the chestnuts out of the fire for the Unionist party. There were 10 and we had the majority. I do not know where hon. Gentlemen opposite were at that time, but they were not there. At that time I was not deputy leader at all. There was the Vanguard party of Mr. Craig, there was the party that I led,


and there were 10 non-pledged Unionists. I am sorry to say that they were not all teetotallers. They came together and that was the beginning of what eventually developed into the UUUC.
That united body of Unionists did not have total integration. It was denied by the Conservative and the Labour parties. When he was in office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South told me that his party would not wear it under any consideration. I remind him that the reason that he gave was that he did not want any more Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland in this House.

Mr. Fitt: Here comes the dirty washing. The hon. Gentleman wanted total integration.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall come to that in a moment because the people of Northern Ireland were sold on that issue. We decided that we would put a united policy to the electorate, which we did. It was endorsed overwhelmingly. It was endorsed in an election which swept everyone but the hon. Member for Belfast, West away. He was returned at that election. Eleven UUUC men came. From that day to this I have abided by what I believe is right. I was accused of advocating integration. I did. It was our birthright. When Stormont fell, it was our birthright to be part of the United Kingdom and we should have been. I am not ashamed of what I did. I defend it. It is a pity that we did not have it then.
Another point must be made in the House today with great vigour. I do not agree with the hon. Members for Antrim, South or for Belfast, West, or with the right hon. Member for Down, South, when they say that a political act will destroy the terrorists. No act of this House will defeat the terrorists. If Stormont was restored in its previous form, more IRA violence would result. That does not mean that Stormont should not be restored. However, if integration were declared, more violence would result. If the Assembly was allowed to develop properly violence would still result because the violent men of the IRA will not be defeated by political means.
Therefore, I take issue with their argument, because a political settlement will not force the violent men of Northern Ireland to put their guns away. That has never happened in Irish history and it will not happen. The only way to deal with terrorism is by military force and power. That may sound unpleasant to the ears of hon. Members. A Member of the IRA who was with Mr. Ken Livingstone on a platform in London recently said that he had the democratic right to carry an Armalite and to use an M60. As a democrat, I could never find a way to pacify that man. The Government must face the fact that passing laws will never remove the gun from Northern Ireland. The IRA wishes to destroy Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The IRA does not mind how Northern Ireland is ruled. Provided it remains part of the United Kingdom it will attack it.
When the hon. Member for Belfast, West was a deputy in the first Assembly, terrorism still prevailed. Even though there were members in Stormont who were of the same religion as the IRA, and who were under the Republican umbrella, violence increased. They did not want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom. Violence will continue and the House will have more debates on the subject.
I never laugh at death. For the right hon. Member for Down, South to assert today that I was sniggering when he spoke of people being killed is outrageous. I attend funerals of his constituents which he never attends. It ill becomes the right hon. Member to give a homily as to the depth of my feelings about people who have been killed. I was not laughing about people who were dead. I resent that remark. I repudiate what the right hon. Member said and he can smile as much as he likes. During the election campaign, the smile will be taken from his face. The Ulster people know what they want. I am totally opposed to direct rule and always have been. I detest Orders in Council. They do not legislate in a proper and democratic way for the people of Northern Ireland. I have often stated that such legislation is obnoxious.
The House is debating Northern Ireland tonight not because it loves Northern Ireland and its business, but because the Government wish to get the order through. In normal circumstances, this debate might have started at midnight or 1 o'clock in the morning. When I was entering the House today, some hon. Members said, "You have it to yourselves today." Do hon. Members really think that Ulster people consider that Parliament is so interested in Northern Ireland that it is setting aside the penultimate day of this Parliament because of its deep concern for it?
I think that the Government believed that the orders would go through on the nod. They have probably prepared for that. The debate is taking place because time has been given for it. When Northern Ireland Members are given time to debate Northern Ireland, they take it. The orders can be defeated only if the Unionists have a majority in the House, which they never will have. One golden opportunity to do that occurred but failed.

Mr. Powell: The result of doing that would have been the reintroduction of the power-sharing legislation of 1973 which the hon. Gentleman detests.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have never heard such nonsense. The Government would have been in such a panic that they would have had to take other measures.
When Parliament returns after the election, there will be 17 elected Members of Parliament. The United Ulster Unionist Council decided that there should be 22 seats at Westminster and it pledged to fight for the convention report and the 22 seats. What happened was that the Speaker called a conference. Other members of the coalition in the Vanguard movement and the Democratic Unionist party did not attend the conference. The right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleague were appointed to the Speaker's Conference. They had an interesting pact with the then Labour Government. I do not know how official or unofficial it was, but to-ings and froings took place. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South may shake his head, but I have other stories to tell. The decision was that Ulster should be sold short —[Interruption.]

Mr. Powell: There was fair play.

Rev. Paisley: Fair play my foot. A circular was given to hon. Members stating that 22 seats would be the correct number for Northern Ireland, or perhaps one more. The fact that there should be 22 Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland was in the manifesto. The hon. Member for Down, North and myself decided to put the matter to the test. When the day came, we put down an amendment


suggesting that Northern Ireland should revert to having 22 seats. However, the gallant hon. Members who gave a pledge in the manifesto that there would be 22 seats would not vote.
In fairness to Northern Ireland, there should be 22 Members of Parliament for the Province. If I had to make a choice—and I make no apology about it—between a fully devolved Parliament and Government for Northern Ireland or 22 Members, I would be prepared to have just 12. I want to make that clear. That is my position, and I have always been consistent. I do not apologise for that. However, we were sold. Then one day there was a meeting.
The right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that we should go to the Labour Government and tell them that we would never vote against them in a vote of confidence. I said that I would not be a party to that —[Interruption.] The loudest and most vehement of all hon. Members, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), was not present in the House. At the meeting, he said that we should change the people who were talking to the Government. As a result, the right hon. Gentleman was no longer allowed to speak for the group. Another two spokesmen were appointed—[Interruption.] I know the story. It is the truth and the Ulster people need to know the truth, because an election is approaching.
I have already said that publicly but I have never before had the opportunity to say it in the House. However, I say it today and put it firmly on the record. We were sold. There should have been 22 Ulster Members. As we have not got 22 seats, there will be a different set of circumstances. As has been said, if the right hon. Member for Down, South had known what would happen to his seat, he probably would not have spoken so strongly about 17 seats.
I am glad that the Boundary Commission was an independent body and that the people of Northern Ireland had the right to put their points to it. I am also glad that even though not all the points were accepted we can at least say that it did its best. I do not challenge the Boundary Commission in this House. If I thought that it had acted wrongly, I would indict it. However, we have 17 seats when we could have had 22—[Interruption.] Why was that in that party's manifesto? It is all very well for hon. Members to discount it and to say goodbye to it now.
Hon. Members are praying for a hung Parliament and hope that we shall return to the time of the Labour Government when they exercised some power and influence. That influence would be much more powerful with 22 Members. After the election, the Official Unionist party may be even bigger than the Social Democratic party.[Interruption.] Those hon. Members who think that it will be bigger than the SDP are better prophets than I am. However, the point is that we were betrayed and I shall go on saying that.
The right hon. Member for Down, South argues that this issue should not be debated until the new Parliament. Let us imagine that all 17 Members were Official Unionists and that they wiped us out at one stroke. That would be a tremendous day. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would then be made deputy leader. They would be totally paralysed and the next Government would renew direct rule. Hon. Members would have a debate, make their protest and at the end of the day this obnoxious order would be enacted. I shall vote against it because I

am consistent. The right hon. Member for Down, South does somersaults. When I say that I am against something, I am consistent. My colleague and I will vote against the order. However, we shall not do that so that people can put on the propaganda sheet that we were the only people to vote against direct rule, to stand up in the House and to carry the flag for our constituents.
There is one thing that should be said about the way in which direct rule is managed. We no longer pass orders as we used to do. There used to be a draft of an order followed by six weeks' consultation. Indeed, we had to fight a long time just to get that. The proposal might then be amended and discussed in the Northern Ireland Committee. At times, we could hardly get a quorum. There would be a short debate in Committee. The Minister would speak for some time, followed by the Opposition spokesman and we would be lucky if two or three Ulstermen managed to speak. The order was then brought before the House and, smack, that was it.
That is no longer the way that orders proceed. They now go to the Assembly. They are then referred to the appropriate Committee. I know that some members of the Official Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party do not attend such Committees. Indeed, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) would not sit in a Committee. It ill becomes him to complain that there is not enough time to do something effective about the order and to consider it properly. He has already been given a forum and all the time in the world in which to call civil servants and others, to question them, and to ask the Minister questions. So far all the Ministers have attended and spoken in the Assembly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman is always praising the House and he knows that he has no right to speak unless he is called. [Interruption.] I, or some other Ulster Member, might do that, and might not have the same respect, but he, of all hon. Members, would not break the rules of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would not dare to do that. He should not shout across the Chamber. He rebukes us for doing that. He should rebuke himself.
I am talking about direct rule. The Opposition have argued that we do not have enough time. They say that we have one and a half hours in. which to debate an order and that is it. However, that is no longer it. The order goes to a Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. If representatives do not attend the Committee, they choose to do nothing about it. However, there are those in Northern Ireland who attend Committees and who provide quorums. Some members of the Official Unionist party have deplorable attendance records. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Name them. "] The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) is not on any of the Committees. He made his position clear from the beginning. Today the right hon. Member for Down South spoke about money, but it ill becomes him to do so because his colleagues are drawing their money and are entitled to do so, just as he is in the House. It is ridiculous for any hon. Member to say that he should get nothing—[Interruption.] Half the story has not been told. The hon. Member for Armagh did not listen to the debate but went home to bed. He did not sit through the debate. He cannot even attend Committees or all-night sittings of the Assembly. However, the Assembly


Committees can call anyone interested in Northern Ireland. We saw that when we discussed the less-favoured areas and the farming community. County Down has many less-favoured areas, just as Armagh has. I have been in both constituencies with my Committee. We have been fighting for the extension of the less-favoured area. There is also an opportunity to hear the Minister.
In the House, we see the Minister once a month at Question Time for three quarters of an hour. I do not say that we do not see him in Northern Ireland, but he is there at the Dispatch Box once a month for questions. One is fortunate if a question is answered in the House. I have waited on the deadline, but the questions are juggled and possibly not reached. The Minister has the advantage. An hon. Member can ask a question and then a supplementary question, but that is all. The Minister has the last word. However, in Committee Members have the last word. The Minister has to sit there and each member of the Committee has an opportunity to examine a proposal to lay an order.
The Official Unionists want to diminish the Assembly's reputation. They tell people that nothing happens there. One of the white-haired men there thinks he will shake the House when he arrives.

Mr. Molyneaux: How will he get here?

Rev. Ian Paisley: He will arrive by bus, with men dressed as astronauts. He told the Assembly that the Assembly was a bus. From the Official Unionist Benches, the man said that the Assembly was a clapped-out bus. Hon. Members may laugh, but they are members of that Assembly. The man stood at the Dispatch Box and said that the Assembly was a clapped-out bus filled with astronauts thinking that they were going to the moon. The man who said that must have undergone a lunar change because no one in his senses would come out with such nonsense. I shall not mention the man's name because he is so discredited. He is a member of two Committees, but has never attended a Committee meeting—and that is a man who says that he will help Northern Ireland.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt because it will give him the chance to catch his breath in the midst of his magnificent peroration. I am a little muddled. I do not understand about the astronauts and the bus. May we be told a little more about the bus; where it comes from, where it is going and about the astronauts aboard it?

Rev. Ian Paisley: According to the man, the Under-Secretary and his Department designed the bus. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues sat at the drawing board and designed a clapped-out vehicle. The people aboard the vehicle are astronauts who think that they are going somewhere when they are going nowhere.
The strange thing is that the Official Unionists and the character who described the Assembly are on the bus. Even the hon. Member for Armagh is on the bus. The bus is the Assembly. When it comes to vital matters about constituents, to housing about which changes are proposed and about rates which help the people of Northern Ireland—

Mr. McCusker: There is a discount.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is a discount, but any alleviation for the people of Northern Ireland is well worth fighting for. Members of the Official Unionist party despise the Assembly. We are talking about 16 changes involved in laying a draft order. When did any hon. Member achieve that? When did the Opposition achieve 16 changes in proposals to lay a draft order? We have been in the House for years. The hon. Member for Belfast, West has been a Member of the House for years and has hammered for such changes, but has achieved none.

Mr. Molyneaux: Not even in the dogs order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is right. Even the segregation of ecumenical animals could not be changed. No changes will be made in orders if the Committees continue to work as they do and if the people and if the people elected to the Committees do not do their work but take the money. The Northern Ireland people will never have the service that they deserve while that happens.
The House has given us the opportunity to deal with direct rule, to scrutinise legislation properly, to question civil servants, to interview expert witnesses and to hear evidence from people affected by legislation. We have the chance to question the Ministers. We also have the opportunity to prepare reports and to have them debated in the Assembly.
When the hon. Member for Belfast, South produced a report his Committee defeated him so he went to the Assembly and he was defeated there. It is not all wonderful. We are not simply doing what we are told. We have minds of our own. A report goes from the Assembly to the Secretary of State so that before the House passes legislation we now have an opportunity to examine Government proposals. Is not that better than what we had before? Yet on Wednesday some hon. Members opposite voted against a motion stating that what we have in the Assembly is better than what we had under unbridled direct rule.
Hon. Members do not want to give any credit to the Assembly, but I know Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who work tirelessly with determination to ensure that they tell Ministers what they think of legislation that comes before it. This House still has its opportunity in its Northern Ireland Committee and in the Chamber.
It is said that whatever party is in power we shall not make changes under direct rule. We can make it through the Assembly but that Assembly must be strengthened. We are not content with mere scrutiny powers. We need a proper devolved Parliament and Government for the people of Northern Ireland. We need a Government that can govern the Province and a Parliament that can pass laws and administer the Province.
Proposals for moving towards legislative devolution have been put to the Assembly. I hope that the Assembly will continue on that road. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Antrim, South laughs, but I can remember him saying that we should have legislative devolution for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South once told us that there was no voice in Northern Ireland that this House should heed in the call for legislative devolution. He will hear the voice loud and clear in Down, South where voices say, "Yes, we want legislative devolution. We want administrative devolution and for the Assembly to progress towards that goal."
That will not come tomorrow. It will be a long hard slog. As an elected representative of the people of Northern Ireland I am prepared to go along that long, hard road. I know that I shall experience many disappointments and frustrations, but even in this House we have our disappointments and frustrations. If we are not prepared to do the job and if we do not have the determination, the courage and the tenacity to keep going, darkness will come.
Constitutionally, I fear what would happen in Northern Ireland if there was only London and Dublin and no Stormont with a voice for the majority of the people. I do not like the talks with Dublin—I never did. I do not think that they do any good. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State really pushed the Southern Government on extradition. This is a vital matter. If people can murder in Northern Ireland and then hide in the Republic terrorism will not be defeated. They must be brought back to stand trial and strong measures must be taken on the border. Her Majesty's Government — at Question Time today I referred in my question not to the Secretary of State but to Her Majesty's Government; the Foreign Secretary, not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, should deal with Dublin—should be pressing for extradition.
The order will be renewed even though Unionists with different points of view will oppose it, and other Unionists with different views on the matter will support it. But let not the House think that because there is a difference, a major difference, between some Unionists there is not a common bond among all Unionists—to ensure that we never go into a united Ireland and that we remain part of this United Kingdom. I am happy to let that be the last sentence of my speech.

Mr. Clive Soley: The most sobering thought that comes to me after listening to the debate is that the general election in Northern Ireland will be conducted very much in the terms of the debate that we have heard tonight. I believe that nothing more could have cut to the quick the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) than the comment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of another race. That comment must have hurt deeply. While the debate in Northern Ireland is conducted in those terms, the debate here will figure hardly at all in the election. Even though I am a Member with Front Bench responsibilities for Northern Ireland, no one in my constituency will be interested in these matters. That is a tragedy and the great implications for the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom must be thought through. It says something about the feelings on Northern Ireland of British people. It also says a great deal about feelings within Northern Ireland.
When I hear members of the Democratic Unionist party speaking, I think that for once in Northern Ireland a touch of class politics is emerging. Their feeling against the Official Unionists is deep and it is partly to do with class. When people mock and deride class politics they should remember that the alternatives, as we have seen in Northern Ireland over the years, can be infinitely worse.
I should not like the last debate on Northern Ireland of this Parliament to pass without placing on record the appreciation that many of my hon. Friends and I feel for the service given to the House by my hon. Friend the

Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who will not be returning to the next Parliament because of boundary changes. He has been one of the most honest and hard-working Members of the House. In my position as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party group on Northern Ireland, he has given me inestimable support and helpful advice. When I came to the House in 1979, it was not always easy to see my way through the maze of Northern Ireland politics, and my hon. Friend was invariably a good and extremely helpful guide. I shall miss him very much, as will other hon. Members.
On the penultimate day of this Parliament. the right hon. Member for Down, South, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), made his traditional speech—the one which says that Northern Ireland is not being treated as part of the United Kingdom. I cannot help feeling that if the right hon. Gentleman were to put his speech to music it would get into the top 20. It has been around for a long time.

Mr. Fitt: Ten years.

Mr. Soley: I should think that 10 years is the minimum.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the Government were nervous about being returned—that is why we are having the election now—but he was wrong in almost everything else he said. I accept and always have accepted the logic of his position — that Northern Ireland, if it really is part of the United Kingdom, should be treated as such. It has not and never has been treated in that way by Governments or the major political parties. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it never will be. When we face up to that problem, we may begin to make progress.
At Northern Ireland Question Time today it was said that the house building programme in Belfast is the largest for more than 100 years. Yet the Government's record on house building is poor. That says a great deal about the squandered years of Unionist rule. I have said before at the Dispatch Box that, had the Unionist party in the past taken the minority community in the North into its confidence, into government and into the political and economic institutions, the history of Northern Ireland might have been different.

Mr. John Patten: I remind the hon. Gentleman, if he needs reminding, of the recent notable speech by Bishop Cahal Daly, who enjoined all members of the minority community and of the Roman Catholic faith in Northern Ireland to remember the good things that Stormont did.

Mr. Soley: I am sure that many people remember the good things, but the Minister knows better than most that he would not need to do his present job if the Unionists had ruled differently prior to the outbreak of the present troubles. The Minister knows that, and he has said so himself on a number of occasions. At the moment we are talking to predominantly Unionist members, who rightly condemn paramilitary violence on the Republican side but are often too slow to condemn paramilitary violence on the Unionist side.
I say to Official Unionists that terrorism comes not from hope but from despair. When people are deprived of the hope of achieving their aims — political, social, economic, or whatever — by legitimate means, the arguments for violence become more difficult to refute. It


is very difficult for men and women of reason to argue against violence when they are offered no hope. Offer people hope and violence can be undermined. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions that there is no way that the House can promise peace to the people of Northern Ireland quickly. It is not possible. If any of us had such a policy, we would have put it forward and carried it out years ago. Such a policy does not exist.
I say finally to members of the Official Unionist party that if they continue to go down the present road they will lead all the people of Northern Ireland—Republican and Unionist, Catholic and Protestant—down the road along which there is nothing but continuing misery and agony.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), although the voice may not be much good, is trying vigorously to get into the top 10 in the charts. The hon. Gentleman's speech has been rehearsed in the House and in conferences for quite a while and it has changed not one iota. It ill becomes him to lecture other hon. Members for rehearsing their speeches.
I should like to clarify some of the thinking that has been manifested in this debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North said that the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) reflected a class division in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke about the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who are now able to get a discount when paying their rates. For the first time for years I have not been able to pay my rates in two lots. Anyone who is prepared to pay a full year's rates to get a 4 per cent. discount will, by leaving their money in a bank account, do much better. To conclude that ordinary people are enjoying a magnificent benefit of a 4 per cent. reduction in rates is absolutely ludicrous. The ordinary people of the Province pay their rates weekly with their rent, and accordingly receive no discount. I do not deny that the Assembly gained a victory, but I am making it clear what that victory means. People should not gain the impression that they will have a 4 per cent. discount on their rates unless they pay them in one sum.
It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not concerned with ordinary men and women, yet his question earlier today about purchases of houses dealt with a matter of real importance to many not only in his constituency but elsewhere in the Province. No one should dare to claim that we are concerned not with the people, but with the constitutional issues. That is ludicrous, especially as constitutional issues are at the heart of the day-by-day battle for the lives of men and women in Ulster.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Bills involving Northern Ireland being introduced in the House. An example is the Marriage Bill which resulted from action in the European Community. Nobody reading its title would think that it had anything to do with Northern Ireland, yet the largest section of it dealt with the Province. Because of pressure on the House, that Bill received its Second Reading in Committee.
I wonder whether the business managers who put this business before the House today saw into the future for

July. Had the business managers who, 12 years ago, took steps to abolish the Northern Ireland Parliament been so far-seeing, we would not be in the mess that we are in today, with this Kathleen Mavourneen or never-never system. The House does not deal realistically with the issue.
I was amazed that the hon. Member for Antrim, North thought it important to tell the House that the Northern Ireland Assembly is so democratic that when members of a Committee wanted to air an important matter on the Floor of the Assembly it divided the Assembly. The matter concerned housing benefits. The Chairman of the Committee lost the point not only in Committee, but in the Assembly. In time, the ordinary people of Northern Ireland will judge who were the wisest people—those who voted to give the Housing Executive responsibility for housing benefit, or those who voted that it continue to be paid through supplementary benefit. In time they will realise the mistakes that have been made, especially when those who are paid housing benefit on their supplementary benefit orders do not bother paying their rents.
I hope that the day will come when the House realises that there is some wisdom among the minorities in the House who have consistently had their arguments about the government of Northern Ireland rejected.
It appears that there is an element of hope. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has left the Chamber. A great deal of attention has been paid to the fact that the Northern Ireland constitutional convention asked for additional seats, perhaps comparable with Scotland's representation. I led a group from the convention to lobby the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He told us that we would never have additional seats at Westminster. I told him that he should at least listen to his leader, who had said that seven days is a long time in politics. "Never" is a word that should not be used by wise politicians.
Admittedly, the right hon. Gentleman was consistent. When he became Home Secretary he should have introduced legislation to give us our rights in Northern Ireland. He did not do so and it was left to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) to do that. It was the first time for many years that the House recognised its obligation to members of this nation to give them proper representation in Parliament.
We can argue the case for additional seats, but it is significant that for the first time since 1921 and certainly from 1969 — this Parliament, which is responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom, has decided that Northern Ireland should be pulled towards the kingdom rather than shunted off towards Dublin. That was the first ray of hope that the British Parliament was prepared to legislate fairly for the citizens of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland.
I intend to oppose the order. One reason is that in this Chamber today we heard an excuse for the failure to deal with grants to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The excuse was that the association was begun in 1962 by the Unionist administration in Stormont. We have already heard from Opposition speakers how bad the Unionist Government had been and that if they had managed affairs better there would not have been such a catalogue of complaints. But the bishop was nearer the truth when he recommended people to consider the positive things done for Northern Ireland by the Unionist Administration. It is wrong for the Government of any nation to legislate to provide funds for


those campaigning to destroy the nation. It would not happen in a democracy and certainly not in a totalitarian state.
The maligned Unionist Administration constantly held out the hand of friendship and tried to do something positive for the good government of the community. If the Stormont Administration, weak though it was, had not been put under improper pressure by this Parliament terrorism could have been dealt with. I do not want to trespass on the next debate, but because the subject has been raised in this debate I must point out that terrorism does not breed simply on despair. The history of counterterrorist activities in other parts of the world and as we have seen it in Northern Ireland shows that terrorism is speedily cut off from its grass roots and support when the terrorists realise that they will not win. Every time these orders come up for renewal the terrorists decide to continue their activities because the Government are not sure about what they will do.
We opposed the Bill which set up the Northern Ireland Assemby not because we did not want something in Northern Ireland for the good of the community but because we knew that the principles behind it were of the same pattern as the renewal orders and were designed to distance us from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is because we are consistent that we shall oppose the renewal of this order. No doubt many right hon. and hon. Members follow sincerely the guidance to them and renew these orders without getting at the heart of the problem. The sooner the Government decide to act positively, the better for the good government of the kingdom as a whole and of Northern Ireland in particular.
If we wanted a history lesson, we could point out that there are differences in the way that Scotland and Wales are legislated for. Anyone who suggests that people of different races who live within one nation cannot understand and co-operate with one another is not being realistic. To set aside a system of government for that reason is ludicrous. I think I am right in saying that even though there was an Administration in Dublin at the time, this House legislated for Northern Ireland from the Act of Union until 1922. Problems began when this House failed to withstand terrorism and thought that it could solve the problem ultimately by coercing Ulster outwith the Union.
The Government of Ireland Act 1920 did not give Northern Ireland proper representation in this Chamber, not because the Government were setting up a devolved Government at Stormont but because they did not think that Stormont would last longer than four years. The Kilbrandon committee, which was set up by the House to examine the future government of the kingdom, did not recommend a reduction in the mumber of Members for Scotland and Wales, should they have devolved assemblies. Therefore, the argument does not hold water or bear examination. We shall oppose renewal of the order because it is part of the philosophy that would distance us from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that for ever and a day the present system of government will remain or that those who believe in a strong central Government for a whole nation are right. There is a good case for federal government. I have no hesitation in opposing the order because it has nothing to do specifically with the Northern Ireland Assmbly. As one who has worked hard within the Assembly for the good of the people who elected me, I believe that it is a red herring to bring in the argument that

if we fail to pass the order it will endanger the Assembly. The principles behind the establishment of the Assembly will have to be altered to give a system of government that will maintain the kingdom rather than ultimately destroy it in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harold McCusker: I, too, oppose the renewal of direct rule. I shall probably not say anything different from what has been said already, but I should like to give my reasons. Direct rule treats the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives with contempt. As a consequence, it alienates them from their system of Government and from this House. Therefore, it is damaging to the Union.
Hon. Members may ask how it treats me with contempt. Although I appear to have the same rights and privileges as every hon. Member, in reality that is not the case. Many of us on this Bench tried, when we came to the House, to play a full part in its proceedings, but it is difficult to take part in debates on major Bills which apply to Great Britain if one is unable to relate them to the problems of one's constituency. When we try to draw on our experience to illustrate a point, it may be pointed out that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, even though its provisions may eventually be applied to the Province by an Order in Council. Therefore one finds it more and more difficult to work up enthusiasm to talk about legislation which does not apply to the Province.
We have been reminded that there is a Northern Ireland Question Time every five weeks. Of course, we could put down questions to other Ministers, although it would be unlikely that we would put down questions in relation to Wales and Scotland. What questions can I put down to the Secretary of State for the Environment or to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security? All those functions are devolved to the Northern Ireland Office. If I put down a general question I will be told that it has been transferred to Northern Ireland Question Time. Therefore, there is no incentive for me to be here on any day from 2.30 pm except when Northern Ireland or perhaps defence questions are being answered. I might come along for Scottish Question Time, hoping to discuss the deplorable state of the road from Stranraer to Carlisle.
The system of direct rule causes Northern Ireland Members to play a dwindling role in this place. Those hon. Members who sometimes say, "We have not seen you for a long time," should bear that in mind. Between 1974 and 1979 Northern Ireland Members had an incentive to come to Westminster. There was a developing hung Parliament and our votes were important. There was the possibility that occasionally we could be of some use, albeit only at 10 o'clock at night. There was an incentive to come to this place and to play our part.
The past four years have been disappointing for me. They have alienated me from this place, and I am sure that as a consequence they have alienated many of my constituents. That is why I am opposed to direct rule. It is a form of colonial rule. I hope that the Secretary of State realises the significance of his move to the governor's residence at Hillsborough. The people of Northern Ireland considered the right hon. Gentleman to be assuming the role of a colonial governor. I may be told by the Under-Secretary that it is an appropriate use of a public building. I can understand that, but it was a symbolic act and it suggested to some in Northern Ireland that they were being


treated like colonials. There were some who thought it suggested that their political master was assuming the seat of power of the Government of Northern Ireland.
I do not want to be too sore about the Northern Ireland Assembly, but what is it doing? It is presenting a veneer of democracy in a colonial system of government. It is the equivalent of a council of chiefs on a south sea island which has been brought along to meet the governor on the understanding that the chiefs will be consulted and their opinions sought. That was often done in the past to give them some stature. If they came up with a reasonable proposition, the governor might accept it. He would then send the chiefs back to keep the natives happy. My principal complaint about the Assembly is that in essence it presents a veneer of respectability on what is essentially a non-democratic colonial style of government.
I did not fight the election for the Assembly to put a veneer of respectability on direct rule. I fought to try to end direct rule. I would happily settle for the integration option or the full devolution option. I articulated in the House and outside in favour of the total integration proposition, and I did so unashamedly. What less can a citizen of this country ask than to be treated like his fellow citizens? What less can he ask than that, especially when he is being denied another system of government that would provide a reasonable alternative?
Until 12 months ago I was convinced that there was no alternative and that devolved government was unacceptable. I considered it to be offered on unacceptable terms. My stance was to ask this place for what I thought eventually it could not resist. I was asking it to treat me like an Englishman, a Welshman or a Scotsman.
I do not advance that argument with the venom of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I regret the way in which he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I do not believe that there is something in the genes of Ulster people, or of Scots, English or Welsh people, that is passed on from generation to generation that makes them distinctive, a separate race and different from others in the United Kingdom. I like to think that after 500 or 600 years of association we are in essence the same people. I should not feel proud to be a member of a race apart. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North talks with venom, deliberately or not, in referring to the race of another hon. Member, I believe that he is talking Irish Republicanism.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I laughed when discussing the dead of Northern Ireland? Will he explain why his right hon. Friend has never attended a funeral of any person murdered in his constituency?

Mr. McCusker: My right hon. Friend can answer for himself on that score. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it was a sense of personal grievance or personal antipathy that brought venom into his voice when talking about an Englishman—"the same might apply to a Welshman or a Scotsman"—I shall accept that explanation. Despite the differences that emerge occasionally between myself and the other strands which make up the people of the United Kingdom, I hope that I shall never reach the stage when I use the venom that the hon. Gentleman employed in referring to another hon. Member.
I do not believe that it shows concern for people merely to attend their funerals. Some of us make that gesture, however, and I try to do so. I cannot understand why, but I know that some of my constituents get satisfaction from seeing me at funerals. Frequently, I feel ashamed to be present. I feel that I have let them down because I have been unable to convince the House sufficiently of the need to defend them. I entered this place less than 10 years ago and I have attended over 250 funerals of constituents who have been murdered. The fact that I have done so does not make me any better, any more sympathetic or any more understanding than anyone else.

Rev. Ian Paisley: But the hon. Gentleman does not laugh at them.

Mr. McCusker: We can convey sympathy and understanding other than by merely attending funerals.
Recently, I attended a gathering of clergymen. I chided them and asked whether they always discharged their obligations to their parishioners. They responded by saying that they hoped that politicians in Northern Ireland did not think that they had discharged all their obligations by attending funerals. There are two sides to the argument. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North is saying that he was not talking in racist terms, I shall accept that explanation.
There was venom in the voice of the hon. Member for Antrim, North when he talked about the party to which I belong. Perhaps I am unable to understand him because I did not have his experience with the old Unionist party. If I had shared that experience, I might share his feelings, Recently, I listened to the hon. Gentleman for four hours. His colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), spoke on the same occasion for about two hours. It struck me that I was the only sensible man in the place. They kept on alluding to the fact that I still represented the old party. I resent that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not claim to represent some of the aspirations or behaviour of that old party. I do not want to embarrass anyone present by saying that.
I became involved in my party 15 or 16 years ago. It was the only party to which I could belong and there was nothing wrong with the association to which I belonged. I campaigned vigorously for many of the things for which the hon. Gentleman has campaigned. When I and others were campaigning day and night to keep Stormont in existence, the hon. Gentleman's party was not supporting us. In fact, his party was threatening to wreck some of the action that I was taking. I have already set in train the machinery necessary to produce the evidence to prove to the hon. Member for Antrim, North that at least in county Armagh that was the case.
I make no secret of the fact that I used my vote tactically when I could during the time of the previous Labour Government. I am proud that I used my vote in the vote of confidence in 1979. The only power that I have in this place is my vote, and it is not very often that I have the opportunity to use it to influence events. When I had that opportunity in 1979 I was determined that I would not miss it, especially when the hon. Gentleman threatened to oppose me at the polls if I exercised my vote. At that time, the hon. Gentleman was telling the people of Northern Ireland that Ulster needed a strong Conservative Government and needed the present Prime Minister to form a Government. He said that he would oppose anyone who tried to keep her out. He told us that the right hon.


Member for Spelthome (Mr. Atkins) was a personal friend of his. The hon. Gentleman was the arch-Conservative in 1979, but we have not heard too much about that since.
We might not get a hung Parliament after the next general election. The chances are all against that happening. I tell the hon. Gentleman that I shall want to sit with my right hon. and hon. Friends on this Bench. I shall want to be fairly close to them. I do not care which party holds power in this place. If there is a Labour Government and I can use my vote to influence them, I shall do so. I shall try to use my vote in the same way if a Conservative Government are returned. I make no bones about that. I find it disagreeable to hear people claim to be Conservatives and to support Conservative policies as long as those policies are not applied to Northern Ireland. They are saying, in effect, "Let us have a Conservative Government and Conservative policies for the mainland, but let us keep Conservatism out of Northern Ireland."
That is not for me. I prefer to be neither Conservative nor Socialist. I prefer to judge the actions of hon. Members as they affect Northern Ireland, and vote accordingly. I fought the 1979 election on that score and on this occasion I shall fight the representative of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I listened to his speech today—it was quite amusing; many had not heard it before—having listened to four hours of it earlier this week. It was a speech that I found amusing, even the second time round. Hon. Members here today will not have to listen to it again. I shall have to hear it another half a dozen times between now and 9 June. I do not know if I shall continue to find it amusing.
I shall accept the will of the Ulster people. The hon. Member for Antrim, North and his colleagues should remember that, after all they have gone through, they cannot be fooled any more. As I say, I shall accept their verdict when they go to the polls on 9 June. For all the histrionics and everything that they will hear between now and then, by and large they have already made up their minds. They will vote as they have voted down the years. They judge people—thank goodness they do—on their personality, their record and as they see them as representative of themselves, as distinct from a parcel of promises which will never be fulfilled.
On the issue of 17 or 22 seats, the hon. Member for Antrim, North accuses us of not dealing with that, just as he and his party accuse us of not bringing Stormont back. The suggestion seems to be that one need only ask for it and one will get it. He should reflect that his Assembly colleague from Antrim, North is at last saying that one does not get things simply by asking for them.
One of his arguments for making the Assembly work is that if we do well and work hard, in the end we might convince people. That always strikes me as akin to the doctrine of salvation through good works; if only we do a good job, behave ourselves and mark up enough credits, we may earn sufficient indulgences and salvation will come. I do not believe that. There is nothing in the Act that set up the Assembly which links good behaviour with eventual achievement. It has nothing to do with either. Indeed, I think that we might achieve more by being more prudent than by complying with the master, the colonial governor, at Hillsborough.
I settled for 17 seats because that was all that was on offer. We did not have a lever with which to get more than that, and if the hon. Member for Antrim, North is advising his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr.

Robinson) on how we might have done otherwise, I shall listen to his remarks with interest, and I may use the advice should the opportunity arise. But we did not have a choice. Seventeen was the average for the United Kingdom and, in accordance with what I said, I am happy to settle for the average. With 60,000 constituents, I am surprised how many hon. Members I meet in the House from the mainland who have many more than 60,000, so I may shortly feel over-privileged on this general issue.
Considering how people were advised to vote for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the hon. Member for Antrim, North was probably incorrect when he said that some of his supporters would not vote for somebody like the hon. Member for Belfast, West. There are areas of Northern Ireland where in elections, for sound tactical reasons, the DUP advises its supporters to vote for people who are the antithesis of everything that the DUP stands for. I support it for doing that. I admire its discipline and the sense in which it sometimes takes that step. But I did not agree with the advice that was given. The Unionists of west Belfast should have the opportunity to vote for Unionists. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with somebody putting forward the case for tactical voting. I should like to believe that in certain circumstances the DUP would have the wit to use its votes tactically, rather than waste them.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Antrim, North when he said at the outset of his remarks that the real bulwark against any attempt to move us out of the United Kingdom was the will of the Ulster people. But he qualified that later when he said that the Assembly was standing in the way. The Assembly is no bulwark against it. It may be a forum where views can be expressed, and I suppose that ultimately, if the crunch came, the elected representatives might claim that they had a mandate to defy. But when this House finally decides, if it ever does, to get rid of us—by way of adjustment or whatever— it will be made certain that there is no Stormont and that there is no Unionist sitting in it.
I do not envisage that situation coming about and, at the end of the day, it is our will. Our people will decide whether we stay in the United Kingdom and who they send to represent them in the real Assembly of the United Kingdom, which is here. That will happen on 9 June and I shall happily accept their verdict. I am sure that at that time there will be more hon. Members on this Bench—if this is where we are sitting—than on any other Bench occupied by parties coming from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I suspect that the House will realise that I had not originally intended to participate in the debate, but having heard some of the contributions from the Benches opposite I feel that the record should be corrected.
When I first came to this House in 1979, my colleagues and I on this Bench took the step of voting against direct rule renewal. We did so as a protest because we recognised what direct rule had done for the people of Northern Ireland. I doubt whether any representative in this House from Northern Ireland would be in a position to defend direct rule. It is a negation of democracy that people from other parts of the United Kingdom, who have little or no knowledge of Northern Ireland and who are not accountable to the people there, should take decisions on their behalf.
It does not matter whether all the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in this House say that they should go in one direction. If they feel that it is to their advantage to go in another direction, the people of Northern Ireland will do that. Does local expertise, knowledge and cunning count for nothing? Accountability is vital, and therefore we opposed the renewal of direct rule in 1979 as a protest, and I am glad that the tellers for the Noes on that occasion were my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who said that he had been a consistent opponent of direct rule.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that although the opportunity was there—and opposition Members now, as then, protest their opposition to direct rule—they did not join us in the Lobby. But that was after a general election. We shall have an election on 9 June and they want to stand before their electorates as the mighty men, the opponents of direct rule, and they will all be out in county Armagh and elsewhere saying that and telling how they divided the House on the issue. They want to be the mighty men of the Official Unionist party. But when they had the opportunity in 1979—when the Lobby doors were open—they were sadly absent when the votes were counted.
We had from the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) his explanation or excuse — I almost said apology—for his behaviour in the Assembly. I think that he is trying to justify to the electorate why he is a non-attender of the Committees there. The most important of the Assembly's business is its Committees, the Scrutiny and Statutory Committees in particular.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Set up by this sovereign House.

Mr. Robinson: Exactly, which means that he is acting contrary to the wishes of this sovereign House. The most important function that the Assembly has is its power to scrutinise legislation and to call Ministers, civil servants and others to account. The hon. Gentleman protests and says that there is no point in coming here because he cannot ask questions, for example about the environment. He has the opportunity in the Assembly to ask questions or, if he wishes, to be a member of the Environment Committee there. Indeed, I would welcome him as Chairman of that Committee. If he were to attend there he would have every opportunity to question the Minister, who I am sure would gladly answer his questions for hours on end.

Mr. McCusker: The hon. Gentleman feels himself to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and thinks that major policy decisions by various Government Departments eventually affect the whole of the United Kingdom. It is important that one should have the opportunity to play a full part in the affairs of the main Department in the United Kingdom rather than its subsidiary in Northern Ireland, which is what we must live with.

Mr. Robinson: I do not detract from the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am showing the distinction between desire and reality. We all want to reach the responsible person. We all recognise that direct rule is an appalling injustice to the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity in the Northern

Ireland Assembly to question the Minister responsible, but he does not take that opportunity. He absents himself from the Assembly, as does the leader and many other hon. Members of his party. If the opportunity were taken, it would be a great advantage to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McCusker: Why does it worry the hon. Gentleman so much?

Mr. Robinson: It worries me that people who pretend to the electorate that they believe in the democratic process and go before them with a manifesto which says that they will use their experience in government to the benefit of the Northern Ireland people in Committees—if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask questions I shall give way.

Mr. McCusker: I do not.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is just having a conversation with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The opportunity was there for the Ulster Unionists to go to the Assembly, but they failed to attend.
The hon. Member for Armagh is having to go before the electorate to justify his behaviour with regard to the Assembly. The Assembly has been a great success, even after only six months. Its success can be seen by the promises of legislation on matters asked for by the Assembly. An example is the rates discount, which is of benefit to those who pay their rates in one sum. It is a benefit that other parts of the United Kingdom would be glad to have. I am sure that if it were offered to hon. Members representing constituencies in other parts of Great Britain they would be glad to accept it.
The draft housing order came before the Assembly and after 50 hours of debate in Committee and in the Assembly—

Mr. McCusker: I heard the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, the hon. Gentleman did listen to me for a couple of hours. Other hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), did not have that opportunity. The right hon. Member for Down, South did not tell the electorate that he would come to the Assembly. It would benefit him to hear the Assembly's successes, because he might try to hide from reality, or the hon. Members for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Armagh might try to hide the successes from him.
The draft housing order, which was the first substantial piece of legislation to come before the Assembly, made major changes to the Northern Ireland housing law as a result of amendments suggested by the Assembly. That is a success. If the Ulster Unionists do not appreciate that, the man in the street, whose lot will be improved as a result, will appreciate it. There have been improvements also in agriculture because of the Assembly's work.
The hon. Member for Armagh should tell the electorate that the Assembly is working, instead of tabling amendments in the Assembly trying to discredit it and what it has achieved. If the hon. Gentleman compares the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with in the House and in the Assembly, he will see that there are advantages in having the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman would not then tell the people of Northern Ireland that passing Northern Ireland laws in the House between 1 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning after one and a half hours debate is any way forward. The hon. Gentleman has


no alternative to the Assembly at present. It provides him with an opportunity to study draft orders and table amendments, but he will not take that opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman says that nothing in the Act says that the good behaviour of Assembly Members will necessarily enhance their chances of more power later. Of course there is nothing in the Act to that effect. Common sense should tell the hon. Gentleman that if the Assembly's one function is abused, it is hardly likely to be given any further powers. If Members are seen to be acting responsibly, reasonably and rationally and actively accepting the responsibility that they have been given by putting forward suggestions that are helpful to the Northern Ireland community, the Government are more likely to give them extra power than if they act irresponsibly in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman tries to tell the House that the argument about 17 or 22 seats for Northern Ireland has been dealt with satisfactorily. He did not tell the House that he and the right hon. Member for Down, South stood on a UUUC manifesto which said that they would come here and fight for 22 seats. When the opportunity came to fulfil their manifesto pledge, they failed to do so. The opportunity was there, but the election manifesto was thrown to the wind. The hon. Gentleman said that he would put himself before the electorate on the basis of his record and personality. He said that that was more than a parcel of promises. The parcel of promises meant nothing to him when he refused to fulfil the manifesto pledge and vote for 22 seats in the House.
I noticed the hot air with which the hon. Gentleman said that Members of the Democratic Unionist party, by a scheme that he did not detail, had been telling people in certain constituencies to vote for candidates other than Democratic Unionists. Will he produce the evidence for that? For whom were the Democratic Unionists asking people to vote? He does not give the details—I suspect because he has no details to give.

Mr. McCusker: I recall an election in the district council of Magherafelt. I thought that the Democratic Unionist party was proud of the fact that it had voted to keep out someone who it believed to be more dangerous than the candidate who won. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is not the case, I shall withdraw my remarks.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should give us further details. I assume that he must be talking about a system of proportional representation rather than a Westminster election. If we have the details we can deal with the matter.
Hon. Members on these Benches will go into the Lobby today as they did in 1979. However, on this occasion it seems that we shall be joined by the Official Unionists. We shall be voting against a system that is obnoxious, undemocratic and unaccountable. I believe that the sooner we have a proper devolved Government and Parliament in Northern Ireland, the better. Unfortunately, the Official Unionists do not want to see that and will do nothing to help.

Mr. John Patten: To a certain extent I feel that I am intruding in a family quarrel which has gone on among the Unionist family across the Chamber. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) is not

in his place, because I should like to agree with him and welcome the fact that we have had a wide-ranging and full debate on this important issue. I welcome the support that we have had for the order from some, although not all, parts of the House.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is not here. Doubtless party business has taken him elsewhere. I should like to express my warm thanks—

Rev. Ian Paisley: He is not attending a Committee meeting of the Assembly.

Mr. Patten: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make another point about astronauts which I still have not quite understood. I should like one of the three right hon. or hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Antrim, South to pass him my thanks for his words of appreciation.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, has now come into the Chamber. How does he square what he said about his hopes—I should like him to explain how those hopes will be brought to fruition—with the hopes of the Labour party, as expressed in its manifesto, of bringing about Northern Ireland unity with Southern Ireland by consent? There was no elucidation of that in the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Fitt: Electioneering.

Mr. Patten: Surely the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not accusing us of electioneering. If Northern Ireland Members can indulge in electioneering, surely the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North and I can be allowed two minutes in which to do the same.

Mr. Soley: The Minister cannot get away with that. He was trying to slip the order through without making a speech, let alone indulge in electioneering, and if it had not been for the Official Unionists he would have got away with it. I have spelt out on a number of occasions how I believe that my proposal could be implemented and I shall send the Minister a copy of one of my press releases so that he can read it during the election campaign.

Mr. Patten: For such treats, one must be truly grateful.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South, who just retuned to the Chamber, and his hon. Friends should know that the Act that we are seeking to extend by order is important, because it underpins stability and confidence in the Province. That is critical.
We have heard much about how more or less terrorism might be brought about in various circumstances. I give the House the assurance that no terrorist in Northern Ireland should think for one second that any of his terrible activities will threaten the territorial or constitutional integrity of the Province within the United Kingdom. I happily give that pledge on behalf of the Government and I am sure that if a Conservative Government are retuned at the general election they will happily repeat that pledge.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) must think that we are naive if he believes that we thought for one second that we could slip anything past him and his eagle-eyed colleagues. We made no attempt to slip the order through the House. I came well prepared, with a substantial background brief, that would allow me to speak until at least 11.30 pm, prepared by the excellent, hardworking civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. We had no intention of slipping anything through.
The extension of direct rule and the renewal of emegency powers are important measures which underpin stability and confidence in the Province, and it makes sense to have them in place in good time before the expiry date gets too close. I believe that we are justified in seeking the House's approval for the orders at this time.
The right hon. Member for Down, South and his hon. Friends may not think that the reason that I have given is a good one, but we do. It is a matter of assessment and the belief that one comes to on the basis of that assessment. The Government's belief differs from that of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, but that is an honest, simple and straightforward difference.
In seeking approval for the order the Government are not taking any new step, but are acting with simple prudence to maintain the framework of government and law and order within the Province. Approval of the order would not prejudice the scope of the Government returned at the general election to legislate for new arrangements in the Province, including those that the right hon. Member for Down, South and his hon. Friends wish to see. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a long and fascinating speech which I shall read with great interest. He said that he could not be thought of as a penitent Cinderella. The Government certainly never think of the hon. Gentleman as a Cinderella or a penitent.
One of the hon. Gentleman's remarks struck a chord which I hope will unite the hitherto slightly disunited House. He spoke about Mr. Ken Livingstone, who has been denied to the electorate of Brent, East by the machinations of Transport House. It seems that, alas and alack, we will not see Mr. Livingstone here and have the chance to question him about his consistent support for men of violence in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can unite in condemning Mr. Livingstone and his kind who act as sordid apologists for murderers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: What do the Opposition say?

Mr. Patten: I welcome the support for the order from some Northern Ireland Members, including the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), whom I forgive, in the end-of-Parliament spirit of charity that has overtaken me, for referring to me as arrogant, innocent and dictatorial—an unlikely combination in anyone's view.
I also welcome the support of the hon. Member for Belfast, West. As always, I listened with respect to his remarks and I recognise the integrity of the hon. Gentleman and of the other Northern Ireland Members who have to labour so hard on behalf of their constituents, particularly as there are only 12 of them to represent the Province at present. I am convinced that the order is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland and I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 4.

Division No. 145]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Lyell, Nicholas


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Best, Keith
MacGregor, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Madel, David


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Major, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Marland, Paul


Brinton, Tim
Mates, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mather, Carol


Brotherton, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Buck, Antony
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Murphy, Christopher


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Neubert, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Normanton, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Cope, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cormack, Patrick
Patten, John (Oxford)


Costain, Sir Albert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dorrell, Stephen
Price, Sir David (Eastfeigh)


Dover, Denshore
Rathbone, Tim


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Rossi, Hugh


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fisher, Sir Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Freud, Clement
Shepherd, Richard


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Sims, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Grieve, Percy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stevens, Martin


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Thompson, Donald


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Viggers, Peter


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Waddington, David


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Waller, Gary


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Watson, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Kilfedder, James A.
Wheeler, John


King, Rt Hon Tom



Knight, Mrs Jill
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lang, Ian
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Lester, Jim (Beeston)



NOES


Molyneaux, James



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Rev. Martin Smyth and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Harold McCusker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983, which was laid before the House on 10th May, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It may be appropriate if I point out that the last debate was rather more wide-ranging than it should have been. This debate concerns the continuing in force of those parts of the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, except section 12 and schedule 1, which relate to the detention of terrorists, for a further six months, beginning from 25 July.

Mr. Patten: I shall speak at slightly greater length in introducing this order than I did in introducing the last order. I invite the House once again to renew the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. It is not my purpose to burden the House with a detailed explanation of why it is necessary that the Act be in existence or be renewed for another six months. That is not because I think that the House should regard the renewal of this or any other Act as an automatic process. On the contrary, I am sure that all hon. Members will share the sorrow and regret that I feel that 10 years after the passage of the first emergency provisions Act we should still be forced to consider the life of its successor for another six months.
The extension is necessary for two very clear and precise reasons. The first is that violence continues in Northern Ireland, and the threat of violence remains. The House will be only too aware that last Tuesday evening the wife of a soldier was murdered in Londonderry in front of her husband, her mother and five other members of her family, including three children. I have to report to the House that so far this year 10 members of the security forces have been brutally murdered by terrorists. I have to continue the litany by reporting that so far this year 10 civilians have been brutally murdered by terrorists and, of course, the bombings continue.
In the coming weeks of the general election compaign in the United Kingdom, the public in Northern Ireland and also in Great Britain must be vigilant against the threat of further terrorist activity.
The reason why we have not had any further large-scale atrocities since last December's heartless massacre at Ballykelly is not due to any sudden show of compassion or concern for human rights on the part of murdering terrorists or their apologists, whether Mr. Ken Livingstone on this side of the water or others on the other side. It is due in some small part to luck, to informers and to people coming forward and giving evidence to the police. But it is mostly due to the care and vigilance exercised by the security forces in Northern Ireland on behalf of the general public.
I leave to the imagination of hon. Members what would have happened on 26 April this year if the security forces had not intercepted a 500 lb bomb in the Falls road. I ask hon. Members to imagine the damage that that could have done and would have done in a crowded shopping centre to passing civilians.
The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding continue to assure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that if they did not have the powers to carry out operations based on the provision of the Act, they might not be, it must be admitted, totally impotent to combat and prevent terrorist crime; but they would be much less effective in doing so, and we are advised that lives would be lost as a result.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman asked the House to speculate what might have happened if the bomb in West Belfast had not been rendered harmless. Would he care to speculate what may happen next week when the Government's proposal to reduce staff numbers at the security gates around Belfast is introduced, with the result that there will be only selective searching?

Mr. Patten: The most careful consideration has been given to that issue and is being given to it. Extra vigilance will be undertaken by all members of the security forces during the general election campaign, just as ordinary members of the general public on both sides of the water must exercise special care throughout the general election campaign because of the terrorist threat.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman say how there will be extra vigilance? At the moment everyone passing through the barricade is searched. The personnel involved are being cut by 150 and there will be only selective searches. How will the additional security be given?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman knows of the substantial numbers of security forces in Northern Ireland, not just the army, but the additional members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been recruited and created as a direct result of the policies put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The greatest possible care will be given to the security position in the coming weeks, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to reveal any operational instructions that have been given.
The same principle that I have enunciated connected with the Emergency Provisions Act about the prevention of terrorist crime has to apply to the operation of the courts in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) is rightly concerned about the operation of the courts in Northern Ireland, a s is his party.
The special provisions in the Act relating to the trials of terrorist-type offences are designed largely to overcome intimidation and threat to both witnesses and jurors. We have all seen the side effects and the direct effects of such intimidation. Terrorists in Northern Ireland, just as they have shown themselves ruthless and without mercy to individuals, have also shown themselves to be utterly without regard for justice. One of their main aims has always been to use intimidation and violence to circumvent, to distort, to pervert and ultimately to destroy the judicial system in Northern Ireland. In turn, they have attacked the police, the judiciary—most recently there was the tragic death of Judge Doyle—and members of the public who have had the courage to come forward and bear witness against them for their dastardly deeds. It is our concern to ensure that the courts have the powers to withstand the pressures imposed on them and to arrive at


the truth, which is critical. The extent of the problem may have changed. It may have got better, and in some aspects it may have got worse, but I assure hon. Members that the problem still exists, which is why we must continue to have the powers.
It would not be appropriate for us to try to interfere at this stage with the provisions of the emergency legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last year that there was to be a full examination of the workings of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act because it was important to check that the powers in the existing Act represented the correct balance between the rights of the individual and the need to protect those rights and the critically important need to provide the security forces and the courts with adequate powers to enable them to protect the public.
It is a very difficult balance to strike, and the end result is not necessarily perfect, but I am sure that by now right hon. and hon. Members are aware that Sir George Baker has commenced work on his review of the Act. His task will not be easy. It is a very complex Act which tries to deal with a complex and difficult situation. Many of the issues upon which it touches are of fundamental importance connected with civil liberties and human rights. But I know that he will carry out his task as quickly as possible and with the characteristic vision and humanity that he displayed over many years in the courts. I am sure that the House wishes him well in his task.
In the circumstances, I trust that the House will agree that there is a clear and continuing need for emergency powers in Northern Ireland and when Sir George Baker has completed his review—it will be conducted in private, for obvious reasons, but the findings will be published in full—and it has been brought to the House, that perhaps will be the time to look at the Act again. But now it strikes me as imprudent during this review to do other than renew the powers conferred by the Act. It is for that reason that I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: We welcome the announcement of a review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. We have been calling for such a review since late 1981.
The Minister is right to say that the powers of the Act are considerable. In normal circumstances, they would be regarded as draconian and unacceptable in any civilised and democratic community. The Act is made necessary by the special problems of Northern Ireland, and I appreciate that. We must constantly bear in mind—I know that the Minister does because of the terms set out for the review — the real conflict between the need to maintain law and order and the need to preserve civil rights. Getting the balance right is of critical importance when one is involved in a struggle with various paramilitary groups.
I am sure that the Government are as concerned as we are at the fact that since 1978 there have been about 17,000 arrests under the Act but that only about 700 have resulted in convictions for scheduled offences and 436 for nonscheduled offences. Any Act of Parliament that results in so many arrests and so few convictions must give rise to concern and requires deeper examination. The way in which the courts are run must also be fully and carefully examined.
We look forward to receiving the report of the review body and we shall wish to discuss it in depth. I am grateful for the Minister's expression of interest in such a debate. Meanwhile, I accept that the Act must continue.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Briefly, I support the order. I share the Minister's view that to deprive Ministers and the security forces of the powers conferred by the order would be irresponsible and would put at risk the lives of countless people in Northern Ireland in the security forces and in the civilian population.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) knows, we have never set our faces against reviews of legislation such as this. We did not oppose the review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Indeed, my party made various submissions to the review body, some of which have been published in its findings. We take a similar attitude to the present review, provided that no one imagines that we oppose the legislation. As I have said, we support it in principle. If it is to be effective it must be reviewed for two purposes —not so much to weaken it as in some cases to bring it up to date and even to strengthen certain provisions. Once again, my party will put forward constructive submissions from people qualified to speak on this matter.
As that review is under way, I share the Minister's view, which was endorsed by the official Opposition spokesman, that the best service that the House can do for the people of Northern Ireland today is to support the renewal of the order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister to certain matters of great concern to me.
At present, 243 civilian searchers search everyone going through the gates into Belfast city. It is proposed that 60 of them be made redundant in the near future and that the present 243 be eventually reduced to 93. In all, it is proposed to make 150 searchers redundant. The Minister's colleague, Lord Gowrie, has said that there will be no more individual searches but only random searches of people going through the barricades.
In recent days we have heard of bombings and burnings in the centre of Belfast. How can the Minister possibly tell business people in the city that the security system will be as good as it was? If we do not search everyone, we may as well search no one. The number of extra police or army personnel has nothing to do with it, because they do not carry out the searches. It ill becomes the Minister to try to tell us that security will be just as good when 150 civilian searchers will no longer be there to do that job. The Minister owes the people and the traders of Belfast an explanation.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not the Government's motive purely financial? They intend to save £1 million as a result of this cut. Is it not a false economy to save £1 million by cutting the number of searchers when compensation for one building could cost far more than that?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I certainly agree. One terrorist bomb in the city centre could cause millions of pounds worth of damage. The Minister owes it to the House to explain how that can possibly be a better security system. He cannot take the people of Northern Ireland for a ride on this. He


cannot possibly tell them that security will be better when to save £1 million the searches are to be stopped, which may allow millions of pounds worth of damage to take place.
Of course I should like to see the centre of Belfast without barricades or searches, but we are surely all aware that the seat occupied by the Rev. Robert Bradford when this Parliament began is now empty as a result of terrorist action. That should bring home to us the reality of the situation. Will the Minister please assure us that this matter will be properly considered and the Government's decision reversed?
I never supported the introduction of Diplock courts. I voted for the retention of juries. It is wrong to try to sell to the House the idea that those courts were set up because juries would have been intimidated. No one knows who the jurors are until they are selected. There was certainly intimidation of witnesses—a witness living not far from me was killed—but I wish to see restoration of trial by jury as soon as possible. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Smyth), who is no longer present, is also on record as sharing that wish. It is certainly my wish and I voted against abolition of jury trials.
A review of the Act is certainly needed. I am concerned about some aspects of the way in which the battle against terrorism is going. I do not like what is happening in the Diplock courts. I cite one example—the case of a so-called super-grass. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that that man was responsible for a grim catalogue of crimes including murder. Yet he is free today. I do not know how much money has been paid to him or what protection is given to his life, but I know that he is free when he has committed murder. The amazing thing is that he was proved to be a perjurer in court. A cheque was produced in court and he was asked whether he had endorsed it. He said, "Never." He did not think that the cheque could be produced, but fortunately the bank teller was able to do so. He had written a code on the cheque which showed that identification had been asked for in the form of the man's driving licence. That was proved in court, yet he swore on oath that he had never signed it.
If that had happened on this side of the water he would have been tried for his crimes, although the fact that he was informing on others would have mitigated his sentence. In Northern Ireland a murderer is allowed to go free. That is a serious trend. I do not want to speak at great length on this subject tonight, but I raise it because of my anxiety about it. I dread to think of murderers being able to avoid prison by being prepared to accuse others. His evidence was uncorroborated and that is most serious. I trust that the matter will change and that we shall have the same code of justice in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) is present, because a meeting in his constituency raised the matter of administrative separation in prisons, on which my party has already declared where it stands. When a man is sentenced to imprisonment his relatives should have peace of mind. They should know that his life is not in danger. However, today prisoners in Northern Ireland are being attacked and their lives are in danger. Yet the Northern Ireland Office tells us that they should not be segregated. I am asking not for that, but for administrative separation. The people of Northern Ireland work and mingle together, but at night they go to their part of the city—the place where the majority of the people

think alike and which they feel is a place of safety. It might not be much of a place of safety but at least they know that the people around them sympathise with their views. But in prison sections of communities that have warred against and murdered each other are asked to accept complete association.
It cannot be denied that there have been attacks. Some prisoners have had deep religious experiences and take no part. They are in between and are getting the battering. It is the Government's duty to do something about that. It should not be swept under the carpet. I have been in prison twice and I know a little about it. When I was in prison certain categories of prisoner never met. The governor decided that for the best order of the prison.
Let me give an illustration. A young man in prison was told that he was going into a predominantly Republican wing. He told the governor that he had been warned that if he did so he would be attacked. The governor sent a prison officer with orders that the prisoner should go to that wing. The man said that if he did so he would be in danger of his life, and the prison officer told him that to avoid going there he should not conform and should break a window of his cell. The man did not want to do that. He wanted to be a conforming prisoner because he had had a religious experience. But the prison officer said that if he did not do so he would be sent among the Republican prisoners. In order to save his life that man broke a window and was locked up rather than go to that Republican wing. I have given written evidence on that matter to the Northern Ireland Office, which was confirmed by the Church of Ireland chaplain. That is happening not once or twice, but many times.
Those matters deeply concern me as a representative of the people of Northern Ireland. I make no apology for bringing them up in the debate tonight because they run deep into the heart of the community. If the hon. Member for Armagh catches your eye. Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to speak of this matter because he was at the meeting and I was not, although I received its resolution informing me that both I and the leader of the Official Unionist party would be approached on this matter. I have already made my party's position clear. We have discussed it in the Assembly and tabled a motion, but I bring it to the Minister's attention tonight, and I trust that he will tell us something of what he intends to do before we have a prison murder. There will then be a hue and cry. It is a tragedy that we have such a situation in Northern Ireland.
I repeat that no political settlement will stop the terrorists. A Roman Catholic in Londonderry had huge slabs of concrete dropped on his hands until they became jelly. With all due respect to other hon. Members, men who do such things will never believe in politics or democracy. They have already said that they will continue to do such things. If they do that to one of their own religion, what would they not do to those of my religion? That is what is happening in Northern Ireland. It is the stark, dark, bloody reality of a frightening situation. The Government must not delude themselves. Even if the Assembly goes forward, as I trust that it will, it will not take the terrorists from the community. Only by rigorous action shall we be able to deal with those who carry out what the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) calls the satanic acts.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I have not found many points on which we could agree over the many years that we have served in this Parliament. However, I recall vividly one issue during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 when he and I, at completely different ends of the political and religious spectrum in Northern Ireland, objected to the setting up of the Diplock non-jury courts. There cannot be real justice in the courts without a jury. The jury system is part and parcel of the British judicial system. It has existed for a thousand years. There would be a great upheaval before anyone attempted to abolish the jury system in Britain.
I have said that the Republic has a terrorist problem, although it is not as serious as that in the North. The courts in the Republic have three judges. In Northern Ireland, perhaps three judges or one judge and two assessors would be better than one. The present system of the Diplock courts, which have only one judge, gives Northern Ireland cause for real objection.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that his party had never disagreed with such legislation. How right he was. In 1922 the Unionist Government first put the draconian Civil Authority (Special Powers) Act on to the statute book. That Act remained in effect from 1922 until after direct rule. It was replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which runs in tandem with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. I have objected to many of the provisions in those Acts. If the debate was not taking place on almost the last day of this Parliament, many hon. Members would be going into the Lobby to register their continuing disapproval of those provisions.
I shall be consistent. I have voted against repressive legislation throughout my political life and long before I came into politics. The Civil Authority (Special Powers) Act was on the statute book before I became an elected representative. That in no way shows that I have one second's sympathy for terrorists and their awful practices in Northern Ireland and in Britain.
A bomb was discovered in my constituency last week as a result of police vigilance. The police detected two vans, one of which carried detonating equipment and the other the bomb. The four people who were in the vans got away. Later the IRA issued a statement charging a priest in my constituency with having informed the police that the bomb was in transit. If the priest informed the security forces that such a bomb was in transit through the heavily populated area of west Belfast, he was morally justified in taking that action. The IRA in its statement said that the priest should have considered what would have happened if the security forces had shot and killed the four men who were in the two vans. The IRA did not consider for a moment what would have happened had that bomb reached its destination or how many other people would have been killed. If IRA men are killed, the security forces are regarded as murderers. If the IRA carries out its continuing number of ruthless murders, that is regarded as a continuation of the armed struggle.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the terrible incident that occurred in Londonderry in which a woman was shot trying to protect her husband. A man who

had been kneecapped and was a partial cripple was dragged from his home in Londonderry to have his hands broken by concrete blocks. Those incidents occurred after a so-called parliamentary candidate, Martin McGuiness, who is contesting a Foyle seat, said that the Republican movement, after much deliberation, had decided not to kneecap children any more, which was very decent of him. In return for that concession, people should apparently vote for him in the forthcoming Westminster elections.

Mr. John Patten: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman or I explain to Mr. Ken Livingstone and his like that support for Mr. McGuiness is support for violence and murder?

Mr. Fitt: I have repeatedly tried to tell Mr. Livingstone and those who share his views that their support gives succour to the most bloodthirsty murderers who have ever lived in Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to a meeting held in London a fortnight ago in which a London member of the Provisional Sinn Fein, which is a legal organisation in London, said that when his party comes to power in Ireland the Garret FitzGeralds and John Humes would have nowhere to shelter. Those are the words of Fascists and murderers who are determined to implement their form of rule by whatever means are possible. It is impossible to say who will be sitting in Parliament in future. Whatever Government are in power, they will have to examine the illegal organisations that exist in Northern Ireland, whether it be the UDA, the IRA or the Provisional Sinn Fein.
There is little difference between Provisional Sinn Fein and the IRA. The membership is of a dual type. My honestly held opinion is that some spokesmen for the Provisional Sinn Fein are also engaged in terrorist activities. Those people will be soliciting votes in the democratic election within the next few weeks.
Northern Ireland has tragically in the past few years developed into a tribal society. Majority and minority tribes exist. The press have stated the anxiety that is felt by Unionist representatives about the evidence that has been given in the courts by the so-called super-grasses. The distinct impression is that the majority of Protestants do not have any real objection to Republican supergrasses. The Catholic community in Northern Ireland would not give a damn if a Protestant super-grass became known every day of the week. That shows how the community has been torn apart into two distinct tribes.
I have read what Unionist representatives have said in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the prisons. They have voiced anxiety about the integration in the prisons where Republicans and Unionists are treated as criminals. That was what the hunger strike was all about. Ten men were sentenced to death in the hunger strike in Belfast by their own organisation that attempted to say that they were not criminals but were in a special category. Those 10 men gave their lives for that cause. Those who were behind those machinations and brought about that tragic conclusion tore the Northern Ireland community apart.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to make it clear that what I am talking about is entirely different. I do not believe in giving any prisoner political standing. Prisoners are criminals and must serve their sentences. However, it is the prison authority's duty to protect those in prison. When a prison officer tells a man that he canot protect him unless


he breaks a rule so that he can lock him up, law and order has broken down in that prison. I am totally opposed to the other system for Protestants, Roman Catholics or anybody else. Those in prison are criminals and must serve their time. In the old days govenors had administrative separation. Rapists and child molesters never mingled with the other prisoners.
When I was in prison a well-known Republican called Sullivan was in prison too. I believe that he is well known to one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Sullivan and I never came face to face in the prison, although we were doing time together. The governor knew that it would not be healthy for us to come face to face. He took a decision. If the prison governor can give me an assurance that every man is safe and will not be attacked in prison, I shall be happy. However, he cannot do that and his own officers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made one speech already.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I apologise.

Mr. Fitt: When the hon. Member for Antrim, North was in prison, it was well known that he did not mix with Republicans. He had a really soft job and was working in the bakery. He kicked up an awful row on Good Friday when he had to make hot cross buns, and that was well known at the time in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that warders and prison administrators are telling people to break windows to save themselves from being integrated. If that is so, there is a case to be answered.
In the past few days I have written to the Minister, Lord Gowrie, about a case that I have. In, I think, H block 6 in the Maze — cellular accommodation as it is now called—there are 17 Loyalist prisoners and three young Republicans. Apparently, those three young Republicans are frightened out of their wits. Their relations came to see me. A prisoner is entitled to the protection of the prison and it is not right that a prisoner's relatives should face continual worry. Therefore, that is a legitimate cause for concern, and the Minister should look at it.
I have always objected to some of the Act's provisions, especially in relation to the means of interrogation and the length of time involved. Under sections 11 and 12, a person can be detained by the police for up to 72 hours in an interrogation centre. After that, on the application of the police, the length of time can be extended, under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, to seven days. The police know of people who have been interrogated for three days. Incidentally, I am not lodging any objection about the form of the interrogation, because the Bennett report highlighted that point. However, during those three days those involved are unable to go to work. Incidentally, there are already too many people who have no jobs to go to. Although no charge is preferred against them, many of them find that they are immediately dismissed on returning to their place of employment. Many of them are embarrassed to tell their employers that they have been in Castlereagh interrogation centre, because they know the political and religious divisions that exist in Northern Ireland. Many of them have lost their jobs because they were unable to work during that period.
We have repeatedly said during our debates that there should be some form of compensation, or that the police or security authorities should give the person involved a

note or some documentation enabling him to return to his place of employment with a clean sheet. As long as there are such injustices embodied in the Act, there will always be cause for objection from hon. Members such as me. I am not too sure than any hon. Member will accompany me into the Lobby, but I shall attempt to divide the House. Whenever this legislation has come before the House I have voiced my objections, for many reasons. Today is the last chance that I have to object and I shall be consistent. Even if I cannot gather any support I shall lodge my objection.

Mr. Harold McCusker: There is a serious argument about segregation and integration in our prisons. I am not worried about the terminology, because in Northern Ireland we have a segregated community. That may not be desirable, but it exists. Government finance is involved in segregation. I speak of education, a spoiling organisation financed by the Government which operates segregation and the Housing Executive which has a points system consolidating that segregation. We say to the more violent element in our society, "You have been caught and sent to prison. Now you must integrate." The Government use none of their influence to encourage integration in society, but when men are put in prison they are told to integrate whether they like it or not. That is not tenable for the Government.
When the Secretary of State and Ministers came to Northern Ireland towards the end of the hunger strike, they made one or two concessions to the Republican prisoners in an attempt to defuse the situation. That worked and the problem was resolved. The Government should make efforts to end disturbances in prisons.
The Minister responsible for prison administration wrote to me to say that he was concerned about the possibility of paramilitary groups taking control of prisoners if segregation is introduced. Republican wings in the prisons exist because of the disputes. Evidence of paramilitary control already exists, and that can be dealt with only through normal prison rules.
The Government's position is not tenable when they make men integrate to conform with prison rules and those men are assaulted, scalded with boiling water or beaten up by Republicans with whom they are forced to associate. The prison system in Northern Ireland should reflect the community. Prisoners who wish to associate with other prisoners should be allowed to do so. Prisoners who are happy to straddle religious alliances should be allowed to do so, but to enforce integration and thereby endanger people's lives is wrong. It is time that the Governmert made the gesture that they have made in other respects.
This is the last time that I shall be able to speak as a Member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents in South Armagh. I have spoken on their behalf so often in the past 10 years that frequently I am referred to as the hon Member for South Armagh.
Many tributes have been paid today, all of which are well deserved, but few communities in the United Kingdom are more deserving of tribute for their forbearance and courage than my constituents. No community has endured for so long what they have had to endure. I am talking of all my constituents.
Since 1971 almost 500 of my constituents have been killed. Well over 300 have been killed by the Provisional IRA. Others have been killed as a consequence of Loyalist


paramilitary activity, and others have been killed by the security forces carrying out their duties. I believe that, under the pressure of such attacks, communities in other places would have disintegrated. It is a great tribute to the people of South Armagh that they are still intact as a community and that they make every effort in the normal course of events to work together and get on together. Although I will not be speaking as their Member of Parliament on other occasions, I am sure that I will be speaking on their behalf in debates of this nature as the years roll on.
The Secretary of State made some comments today which no doubt struck a chord in the hearts of many Northern Ireland representatives. The right hon. Gentleman said that he regretted that Question Time, which raises matters of security statistics, tends to give the wrong impression about Northern Ireland. I go along with that. The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that the overall level of violence has fallen substantially over the years. I go along with that as well. But that does not apply in all parts of Northern Ireland. For those who have doubts about that, I shall describe a seven month period of events in Northern Ireland.
On 7 October 1982, one UDR man and one prison officer were murdered; on 22 October 1982, another UDR man was murdered; on 27 October 1982, three RUC men were murdered; on 10 November 1982, another UDR man was murdered; on 16 November 1982, another two RUC men were murdered; on 19 November 1982, another UDR man was murdered; on 27 November, an RUC reservist was murdered; on 21 February 1983, another RUC man was murdered; on 9 March 1983, an innocent Protestant civilian was murdered; on 15 March 1983, another police reservist was murdered; on 13 April 1983, a Territorial Army reservist was murdered; and on 6 May 1983 a civilian, described by the IRA as an informer, was murdered. In a seven-month period, 16 people were murdered by Irish Republican terrorists.
To appreciate the effect of those murders on the people of the community, one has to live with them. Probably the only thing that sustained those people was the fact that, for a short time during that period, it appeared that the security forces were taking the resolute action necessary to defeat the murderers. During that period six people were killed by the security forces. Lest anyone rises to defend those people and to describe them as innocent, I can tell the House that on the day they were buried there was no doubt about what they were. They were given full paramilitary funerals. Before they were cold they were acknowledged as active members of the Republican movement. The security forces' action, horrific though it was in its own way, was probably the only thing that kept the community from once again taking the law into its own hands.
Yet, over the next few weeks, I will witness and the families of those people will witness the spokesmen for those murderers tramping the streets and lanes of County Armagh—

Rev. Ian Paisley: With police protection.

Mr. McCusker: —with protection offered to them, masquerading as politicians. From what the Minister and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, there can be no doubt that those men are not politicians.
I well remember that, shortly after I was elected to the House in 1974, a dirty deal was done across the Chamber between the two Front Benches to lift the ban on Provisional Sinn Fein and at the same time to lift the ban as a quid pro quo on what was called at that time the volunteer party—a wing of the Ulster Volunteer Force. At that time I expected in my innocence the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who is now Foreign Secretary, to comment. The right hon. Gentleman slipped down further into his seat and did not rise. As a consequence, that motion was passed unopposed. I had prepared a speech and had intended to oppose the motion, but I did not have the opportunity because it passed so quickly through the House. That would not happen so easily today.
Shortly after that, as a result of vicious terrorist actions by the Ulster Volunteer Force, the House re-proscribed the volunteer party. The House recognised that one cannot play politics in the daylight while playing the terrorist in the dark. But it seems reluctant to accept that for the Provisional Sinn Fein. The Minister asked what could be done with such people. The answer is to proscribe them. Society will not accept as politicians those who carry a rifle in one hand and a ballot paper in the other. Many societies throughout the world will not accept that.
If the day ever comes, and I hope that it never will, when the militant Left or the lunatic Right on the mainland decide to advance their political objectives by terrorism and front men, the House will have no hesitation in ensuring that they are banned and that the world is told that they are terrorists and spokesmen for the apologists of terrorism. They would not be recognised as a legitimate political organisation. If they were banned, they might be charged with an offence if necessary. I am not concerned with the niceties of being told that we cannot do this, that or the other.

Mr. John Patten: I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to end his equitable and accurate debating with me across the Chamber for the past two and half years by misrepresenting something that I said. When the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) kindly allowed me to intervene in his speech, I asked him how I could explain to such people as Mr. Ken Livingstone and his ilk—the apologists for murderers and others in Northern Ireland —what the net effect of their actions would be. I did not at any time talk about proscribing the Sinn Fein or any other organisation.

Mr. McCusker: If the Minister acknowledges such people to be what we, the community and the Roman Catholic hierarchy acknowledge them to be, it would be logical to ban them and declare them a wing of the terrorist organisation. In many ways they can be as dangerous and as effective in prolonging the terrorist campaign as the dumb gunman who blows out someone's brains.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is possible—although I hope it will not happen — that the two members of the organisation that we are discussing, who were banned from coming to the House, could come here as elected Members because the Minister is not prepared to take the action that he would take under similar circumstances on the mainland.

Mr. McCusker: Hon. Members will remember that the Chief Constable, when banning them, actually said


that they had been involved in the commission of terrorist offences in previous months. There is no doubt about that. It will be highly offensive to the people of Northern Ireland — especially those related to people who have been murdered or mutilated — to see such terrorists masquerading as legitimate politicians during the next few weeks. To be fair, they do not apologise for their terrorist activities; they glory in them. Everything that they do heightens the tension and fear in Northern Ireland. They are an essential component of the whole terrorist apparatus.
I hope that the day is not too far away when we face up to our responsibilities. Men who are believed by the highest authorities in the land to be guilty of the commissioning of serious terrorist offences, and are therefore not fit to walk the streets of London, should not be thought fit to walk the streets of Belfast, Derry or South Armagh. If that is so, we must face up to that reality, ban them and take whatever other effective action we can against them.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) did an injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he suggested that the references by my hon. Friend and other Unionist politicians over the last few months to the super-grass issue had been on one side of the fence because they dealt with Ulster Volunteer Force cases. The hon. Member for Belfast, West would no doubt accept that in this case it would be a Protestant UVF member who would go free. If my hon. Friend says that a Protestant should not go free in such circumstances, he is hardly likely to say that an IRA man should go free in similar circumstances. We see no distinction between the two.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is so concerned about the continuance of the Act without its being reviewed, would not like an innocent person to go to gaol because of the uncorroborated evidence of a super-grass who was trying to save his own skin. The hon. Gentleman would rightly howl to high heaven if that were to happen. While it is a sensitive issue, let us not minimise the effect that it could have within the community and the injustice that could be caused.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred to the meeting in his constituency at which administrative separation was considered. Unfairly, he likened the case for administrative separation to political status. Nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the case for political status was based on the so-called five demands of the IRA. Those demands were built up within a prison system based on compounds such as one might expect to see in a prisoner-of-war camp where the prisoners control the compound and decide who carries out the duties and when prisoners shall rise in the morning and go to bed at night. They are in complete control and only fleeting visits are paid by prison officers.
That is a world away from the situation in the H-blocks, which are closely controlled by the prison staff. It is a cellular system rather than communal quarters. Administrative separation would not give prisoners control over the wings. The very words "administrative separation" indicate that the administration could change prisoners from one wing to another or from one H-block to another. Complete control would be kept within the

prison regime. Because it is a cellular system, prisoners could be locked up at night and would not have control in the wing.
There is more likely to be control by paramilitaries under the present system within prisons. The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to the three Republicans who are in H6 with 17 Loyalist prisoners. I should have thought it was more likely that those three prisoners would stick together as a unit to safeguard one another's lives if they felt under threat. If the three are in a wing they can go about their own business, but they may act as a unit under threat, which makes a paramilitary group all the stronger.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Belfast, West that the case for administrative separation is built upon one premise and one only, and that is safety. If the prison regime cannot afford safety to the prisoners, surely other steps must be taken. The Minister responsible for prisoners in Northern Ireland, Lord Gowrie, came out resolutely against segregation and even against administrative separation when that was explained to him.
However, when a prisoner called Kenneth McClinton was working in an IRA workshop, he was brought to the ground, scalded with boiling water across his back, beaten with a blunt instrument on the head, hit about the arms and body with a wooden baton and kicked while on the ground. If he had been a weaker individual, he would never have left the workshop alive.
McClinton used an IRA man as a shield to get outside. When he passed through the doors, there was not a prisoner officer in sight. The positions that would normally have been manned by prison officers were empty. There was a large van obstructing the view of the prison officer on the watch tower, which prevented him seeing anyone coming out of the workshop. The fact that a van was outside the workshop was a sign that there was either loading or off-loading. Usually vans go to the workshop only for one or other of those purposes. However, the door to the other end of the workshop was closed, preventing anyone from that end of the workshop seeing what was taking place.
I hope that the investigation that has been promised into the positioning of prison officers on that occasion will be thorough. There are many who want to know where the prison officers were when the incident took place and the measures that the IRA took to ensure that no officers were present.
When I met Lord Gowrie to talk about the Kenneth McClinton incident, he admitted that the intention of the IRA men was to kill Kenneth McClinton. I noticed a difference in the Minister's attitude after the McClinton scalding. He appeared to be reconsidering his position.
I went to the prison hospital to meet Kenneth McClinton. I have visited him in prison on about six occasions. His story is interesting. He was one of the most ruthless paramilitary members in Ulster and was on the very Right wing of the paramilitary organisations on the Loyalist side. When he went into prison he was one of the few hard-core Protestant prisoners who went on the blanket protest.

Mr. Fitt: Is this Kenneth McClinton the man who murdered a bus driver, Harry Bradsaw, who was driving a bus at the time of a strike? Is it the same man?

Mr. Robinson: It is the same prisoner. The prisoner, when he was on the blanket protest, had a spiritual


experience and changed his life completely. The prison staff recognised the change in him, and anyone who meets him will know that his life has changed. I suggest that those in authority in our prisons should do everything possible to encourage people like Kenneth McClinton to stay away from paramilitary groups. They should endeavour within the prisons to support prisoners who want to reform their lives and conform to society and prison regulations. Every encouragement should be given to them to keep away from the influence of paramilitarists, and this can be done through administrative separation.
I saw a slight change in Lord Gowrie's attitude. The attempt to kill Kenneth McClinton had struck a chord with him. The incident had concerned him. I shall be interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Armagh. The hon. Gentleman was unable to be in his place in the Assembly on the occasion when administrative separation was discussed.
Lord Gowrie still uses the excuse that there is no demand for administrative separation, and he cites the motion of the Assembly which turned it down. The hon. Member for Armagh is on record as having spoken out on the subject, and he will not want to go back on what he said. I urge him to join my colleagues and others from his side to table a motion in the Assembly to press for administrative separation, for everybody knows that it is only a matter of time before somebody like Kenneth McClinton is killed in our prisons.

Mr. McCusker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from the day, almost from the hour, that the Secretary of State took up his appointment, I have been in correspondence with him and with Lord Gowrie, and have had meetings with both of them on the issue, as well as having meetings with representatives of my constituency who are concerned? My sympathy for the argument is clear. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to agree a motion that can be placed on the Order Paper of the House, I shall be happy to sign it along with him.

Mr. Robinson: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was a Johnny-come-lately to the administrative separation or segregation issue. I was pointing out that we lost the vote in the Assembly on that matter. I was suggesting that we might agree a motion, and there must be value in agreeing motions before they are tabled. Can we agree a motion that will be approved by the Assembly before somebody is killed in our gaols?
When I made my maiden speech in the House in 1979 I dealt with security, a subject which every hon. Member has raised, and asked the Government to take resolute action against terrorism "to let my people live." At the end of the life of this Parliament the Government have made no progress. Security policy has not changed in a way that will make any difference to the chance of the IRA being defeated. There is only one way to defeat the IRA. Political initiatives will not do it. Only a strong security initiative and drive against terrorism will do it. That has not come from the Government and it is to their discredit that they have not taken more resolute action against the IRA.
One of my first actions on becoming a Member of Parliament, following a visit to my office in Belfast by five members of the security forces in the Fermanagh area, was

to see the border region. They came to my office in Belfast and said, "One of the first things you should do is to see what it is like for people like us along the border." I went with them to tour the Fermanagh area.
Today, four years later, three of those five men who came to see me in 1979 are dead, murdered by the IRA. The terrible aspect is that those three men told me in 1979 that they would die. They knew—because they lived in an area that had significance along the border—that a campaign of genocide was on and that their death warrants had been signed. I suppose that in due course I—or perhaps another hon. Member—will be discussing the renewal of this measure. I wonder, as I stand here at the end of this Parliament, how many of the remaining two of those five men will then be living.

Mr. John Patten: No one could fail to be moved by the litany of death that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) gave us. I know that he has walked behind many coffins in his constituency. I am sure, knowing him as I do, that he remembers that others on this side of the water have walked behind the coffins of soldiers, young and old, who have given their lives in defence of the people of Northern Ireland. I remember such a funeral in my constituency of an 18-year-old rifleman of the Royal Green Jackets who lost his life in Northern Ireland.
I concur more cheerfully with the hon. Gentleman's evaluation of his constituents: how well they get on with each other generally and what a cheerful place his constituency is despite the level of terrorism. I have always enjoyed my visits to Armagh and, somewhat poignantly, it was in Armagh on Monday afternoon that I heard that the general election was to be called. The torn-tom drums and messages from the Chief Whip reach even those parts of the United Kingdom that messages do not commonly reach.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Lambeg drum.

Mr. Patten: I have never played a Lambeg drum. It is one of the experiences that I have missed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten: I shall give way on Lambeg drums but on no other issue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) would be a most able instructor if the Minister wants to take lessons.

Mr. Patten: When I return to Northern Ireland on 10 June as part of the continuing Conservative Administration, with my Department's five-year plan I can apply to the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) for instruction in how to play the Lambeg drum.
Those who are historically inclined might be interested to know that this is the last speech that any hon. Member representing the city of Oxford will make. The constituency has existed since 1298 when two burgesses were sent to Parliament. They did things better in those days. They sat for two occasions on two single days only in that year. Since then there has been an hon. Member for the city of Oxford. I am the last to hold that happy title.
I shall deal with four matters. The first is the review by Sir George Baker of the Act. The second is the important issue of searching. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for mentioning it. The


third is converted terrorists, and the fourth is the problem of segregation and safety of prisoners in prisons. I assure the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that the terms of reference of Sir George's review will allow him to conclude and recommend that certain parts of the Act be changed in different ways, both strengthening—to use his words—and weakening the Act.
I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that a review of the workings of the Diplock courts is always kept in mind. It would be wrong for me to comment on them while Sir George is examining the Emergency Provisions Act. Searching was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. We are seeking to make the best use of security resources in central Belfast. We believe that the security arrangements will be improved by the introduction of new and flexible procedures which can always be stepped up if necessary. We believe that the existing arrangements lead to a waste of resources. I know that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is listening with care because he pressed me on this point.
The selective searching of pedestrians will continue. The selective and in many cases fuller and more thorough searches of civilians will continue at the barriers. Cars will, however, always be searched. All pedestrians will be searched at off-peak times. We believe that full selective searching will be a thorough deterrent to possible terrorist threats.
I remind the House that we were told loudly by some hon. Members that letting cars into the centre of Belfast before Christmas 1981 would lead to more bombings and to the breakdown of ordinary, civilised life in the centre of the city. That has not happened. The new provisions will allow the security forces to make a flexible and more efficient use of their search powers.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was interested when the Minister referred to making better use of resources. I understand that there is to be a reduction in the number of security forces involved in searching, and that seems to involve a reduction of resources rather than a proper use of them.
I was also fascinated when the hon. Gentleman said that there would be spot checks at peak hours and that everyone would be searched at off-peak periods. Surely that is a warning to the terrorists to do their business at peak hours.
We should not congratulate ourselves too much on the fact that car bombs have not been used in the past year. Those who watch the pattern of terrorism know that there are tactical reasons for that, and only this week we saw the renewed use of grille bombs in the centre of Belfast.

Mr. Patten: The points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and his colleagues will be carefully evaluated and taken into account by my ministerial colleagues responsible for the matter.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten: I wish to turn to—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Patten: I am sorry, but I wish to discuss the important issue of converted terrorists. The converted terrorists who have come forward and helped the police

and the courts have been critical in securing convictions, preventing further terrorist activity and helping the forces of law and order to fight the battle against terrorism.
If the RUC, and particularly the Chief Constable, were subjected to less unwise criticism and calls for resignations, the RUC would be able to get on with its job much more effectively.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Chief Constable's own men want him to resign.

Mr. Patten: My charitable feelings at the end of a parliamentary Session prevent me from elaborating on my views about unwise, unjustified criticism of a splendid serving police officer who, like all his men, has given up an enormous amount and is risking an enormous amount to serve the people of the Province and of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have the support of the people in the Province for that view.
My final point concerns segregation. The demand for the separation of prisoners on religious grounds may have superficial attractions, but it does not necessarily follow that the consequences of such action would be those for which hon. Members hope.
The immediate result of any formal segregation would undoubtedly be to increase substantially the ability of the paramilitary organisations on both sides to operate more cohesively and effectively in Northern Ireland prisons. I am sure that no hon. Member wants that.
The paramilitary organisations would be able, by intimidation, to choose those prisoners who were acceptable to them and those who were not. To borrow an expression often used by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), they would be able to operate a form of apartheid in prison. That cannot be in the interests of the prisons or the prisoners.
In addition, the paramilitary organisations would press for the prison authorities to act through the command structure and the spokesman of the organisations. In short, to agree to a criminal formal system of segregation would be likely to pave the way to a return to special category status. That would lead to a loss of control by the prison administration. That is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, we are conscious of the fears of some prisoners and of their relatives and friends, and of those who go in a Christian spirit to visit them. We acknowledge that there are many prisoners in goals in Northern Ireland who wish to serve their sentences quietly and remain apart from paramilitary influences. I assure the House and, in particular, Northern Ireland Members, that the Government will continue to keep in close touch with prison governors who are anxious to take every practical precaution to ensure the safety of all the prisoners in their care.
The Act and the order renewing it are of fundamental importance to the security of the population of Northern Ireland. The Act is being closely examined by the review under Sir George Baker. I hope that no one, particularly at this time in the life of the Parliament, will be tempted to divide the House against the order. I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 0.

Division No. 146]
[9.16 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Best, Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard






Brinton, Tim
Mather, Carol


Brooke, Hon Peter
Molyneaux, James


Buck, Antony
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Murphy, Christopher


Clegg, Sir Walter
Neubert, Michael


Cope, John
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, Sir Albert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dorrell, Stephen
Paisley, Rev Ian


Dover, Denshore
Patten, John (Oxford)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Goodlad, Alastair
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Grieve, Percy
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Hamilton, Hon A.
Sims, Roger


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Thompson, Donald


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Kilfedder, James A.
Viggers, Peter


Lang, Ian
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Nicholas
Watson, John


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Wells, Bowen


McCrindle, Robert



McCusker, H.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Macfarlane, Neil
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


MacGregor, John
Mr. John Major.


Madel, David



NOES


Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Jock Stallard.


Mr. Gerard Fitt and

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Forestry Commission (Northumberland)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a pleasure to take the opportunity of almost the last Adjournment debate of this Parliament to raise again the issue of forestry job losses in Northumberland. I make no apology for raising the matter again, because since I raised it on 22 February a good deal has happened, including many of the things that I feared.
On that occasion, I contended that job losses would arise from three aspects of Government policy — the privatisation of forests, the privatisation of forestry work, that is, the cutting of timber still in the possession of the Forestry Commission by private contractors, and the management review taking place.
Although the numbers involved are not large by industrial standards, they are catastrophic in scale for the small villages of Northumberland, some of which were built or expanded especially for forestry.
In that debate, the Minister sought to allay my fears by suggesting that things might not be so bad as I had suggested. When I asked whether she recognised that the staff reductions to which she referred would involve compulsory redundancies, she went so far as to say:
No. The point that I am trying to make and had hoped to develop … is that this is still a matter of discussion with the trade unions. It would be wholly pessimistic of the hon. Gentleman to arrive at that conclusion."—[Official Report, 22 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 914.]
The Minister may argue that in saying that there would not be compulsory redundancies she was referring especially and perhaps exclusively to the management review, which is one of the three policies that I contend are leading to job losses.
Since then, 70 redundancies have been proposed in north-east England, 30 of which have been in Northumberland which have particularly affected Thrunton, Harwood, Rothbury, Bellingham, and, above all, the Kidland forest, where the entire work force is to be dispensed with.
The chairman of the Forestry Commission, in a letter to me, said:
Unfortunately, it will not be possible to avoid redundancies though we expect that some of these will be on a voluntary basis.
The Minister will know that the trade unions have registered their complete disagreement with the 30 redundancies that I have described and others in neighbouring areas. Therefore, the matter has become one of national dispute between the trade unions and the Forestry Commission. That has at least halted the process of implementing some of these redundancies for a moment. It has given us a breathing space in which I hope that our brief exchange tonight will help to contribute to a little rethinking by the Forestry Commission.
When the chairman of the commission wrote to me he said that when the Minister had said that there would be no compulsory redundancies she was talking only about the management review in the district structure. I contest that. I think that she was reacting in the much wider context of the many points that I had made. However, let us assume for a moment that she was speaking purely


about that narrow aspect. Does she still say that no redundancies will result from the management changes that she claimed then were
designed to ensure that the management structure is fully compatible with the significant changes that have evolved in forestry operations in the last two decades?
Is she saying that other than the 30 redundancies that are now under discussion there will be no redundancies among foresters and forest officers in those areas? Is she saying that there will be no redundancies among the clerks in those areas, or, indeed, among the cleaners who clean the offices that are part of this management structure?
Let us take the example of the Kidland forest where the entire office is to close. Clearly, there will be no management tier there at all. Therefore, the job for the senior employee will go, as well as the jobs of the clerk and the person who cleans the office. There clearly will be further job losses. I contend that over and above the 30 redundancies there will be further job losses at management, supervisory and clerical levels in this thinly populated rural area. Some of those are already known to the various trade unions concerned. The clerical grades do not yet know what will happen, but to some of them the writing is on the wall because of the clear implications of what has been said so far.
I expressed a particular fear in the last debate that forest sales and consequent redundancies were occurring more heavily in the north-east of England than elsewhere, where justifiable pressure from amenity interests against sales are particularly strong. There are areas such as the New Forest where, rightly, there is much pressure against sales on amenity and other grounds. Indeed, there is pressure in my part of the world, but we sometimes think that it is the voice of the south which is so readily heard by Government rather than the voice of those in the more remote places. The figures suggest that there is something in that fear and that there will be more attempts to sell off forest estates in areas such as the north-east of England than elsewhere.
The reaction in Northumberland, the debates and questions in the House, the resolute stand of the Transport and General Workers Union have all combined to force the commission to think again in the interval that is provided by the union's decision to make this a matter of national disagreement. So far, the commission has moved only fractionally in its thinking. All I have heard is the possibility of a couple fewer redundancies out of 30; and that is little progress indeed. Therefore, the Government must discuss with the commission the implications of what is being done in Northumberland.
The job losses in the forest villages will have the most disastrous consequences, particularly for employment. They will not be replaced by private forestry, because that tends to provide fewer jobs and at centres further away, not in the main forest villages where the unemployment is created. The Forestry Commission came to our villages to provide employment. We were told in those days that it would employ far more people than farming, that villages could be built up and that it provided a great hope for the future. Now the villages are empty and the whole fabric of life in them is disintegrating.
There are consequences for agriculture. Farming was told to make way for forestry as the great thing of the future. Much unhappiness and argument was caused when sheep farming gave way to forestry. Initially, there was much hostility between the farming and forestry interests.

In time, they, became good neighbours. The good neighbour policy is becoming almost impossible to implement as a result of the constraints placed on the Forestry Commission. These measures will make the position much worse.
The Forestry Commission did its reputation much good trying to be a good neighbour to the farmer. The National Farmers Union did its best to make the relationship work in areas such as Northumberland. In recent years, however, there have been increasing problems as local forests have been starved of cash. If fencing is not adequately maintained then stock strays into the forests; sheep may be lost if they wander for miles and their wool is damaged if they get among the trees and fallen timber. Ewes are not mated because the rams are unable to find them if they have wandered into the forest. There are very real financial problems to the farming community.
Fencing is a very important subject. The Minister knows, from debates which have taken place on the bill, about the fear that fencing responsibilities will not be taken on by the purchasers of forests when they become private. That state of affairs will apply to Forestry Commission forests as well if there are insufficient men to carry out forestry maintenance work, that decline has already started as a result of the lack of cash that is available to local forests. If the men are not available, that work will not be carried out, and serious problems will be caused to farmers.
Decline in the maintenance of drains and ditches has similarly damaging consequences. The Minister understands that heather burning must take place on upland areas to maintain good sheep grazing. Burning must be carried out with careful co-operation between the farmer and the forester. A proper boundary must be kept between the burning area and the forest which is vulnerable to fire. If there are no forestry workers in the area who can cooperate with the farmer, then the job cannot be done properly.
Consequences exist for the fabric of life in the countryside. When forests were established in areas such as Northumberland people were told that they would help to support the schools, the shops, the post offices and the social life of the villages. Forestry workers and forestry officers make a tremendous contribution to those aspects of life. They are involved in all types of community activity. If they are removed, a further hole will be knocked in the community life of the rural areas. As there is so little other employment in these areas, it is difficult to maintain the fabric of life in the countryside. There is a danger of the countryside becoming a museum and not a living area. In this case, the pattern will be clear. The Forestry Commission will have come in to the area offering great hopes and it will in effect have gone away taking such hopes with it and leaving a savagely depleted countryside.
When the Forestry Commission's sales policy was debated, hon. Members were told that the plots would be sold in circumstances that were administratively convenient because a separate area of forest was to be treated in that way. The position now is that the basic investment in the main forestry areas is affected. Kidland, for example, is an important area for the commission in Northumberland. The Government are trying to produce quick cash for the Exchequer out of forestry and they are not taking heed of the consequences for Britain's future timber needs or of the consequences for the countryside


where forestry exists. The philosophy of the fast buck is applied to a great national asset that involves jobs in rural areas. The Government must examine the implications in such a vulnerable area as rural Northumberland and the implications of what they are doing. I sense that the Forestry Commission is under great pressure to carry out the privatisation policy and the management changes that I have described. I wish the Forestry Commission to be relieved of some of that pressure so that it can recognise the social needs of an area such as Northumberland and the damage that may be done there.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I apologise to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for taking my seat as he started his speech. I listened with interest to his speech, and my reaction is to welcome the opportunity to deal with the points raised by him and to correct some misapprehensions.
The hon. Gentleman will recollect—indeed, he has given us quotations—that during our earlier debate on 22 February he concentrated very largely on the possible effects on employment of the disposal of forest land and on the commission's management structure review as it would affect the forest and district levels of management. My reply on 22 February dealt with those matters. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, I dealt not only with management but with disposals. I believe that those subjects were dealt with comprehensively. At the same time, I took the opportunity to explain some of the background to the continuing reduction in the number of people employed by the commission and to make the point that although I agreed that the commission had an important role to play in providing employment in rural areas, that had to be balanced against the need for the commission to operate efficiently and cost-effectively.
In the previous debate I made the point that although the disposals programme was likely to lead to some redundancies, they would be kept to a minimum. The effect so far of the disposals programme has been minimal in Northumberland. It may come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman to learn that no plantation sales have been completed in Northumberland since the passing of the Forestry Act of 1981. Plantations are, of course, being placed on the market there and it is not possible to say what will or will not sell. However, what can be said is that sales will represent a very small proportion of the 50,000 hectares managed by the commission in Northumberland. The hon. Gentleman's comments were a little exaggerated, and I think that that explanation serves to put the disposals programme into perspective for Northumberland, and is very much in line with what I said in the previous debate.
Changes in the commission's management structure at forest and district levels will certainly result in fewer people being employed in local management—I made the point during the previous debate that there would be significant staff savings—but with the provision that is being made for voluntary early retirement and other arrangements, which are being worked out with the unions, there will be few, if any, redundancies, with the possible exception of forest clerks. Even here,

consultations are continuing. None of the recently proposed redundancies in Northumberland arises from the management structure review.
A number of other factors have persuaded the commission of the need to reduce the size of its work force in Northumberland, which in turn has led to the proposed redundancies.
The hon. Gentleman will recollect that during the previous debate I was at pains to point out that the commission could not escape the effects of the recession. As we know, the closure of the pulp mills at Fort William, Ellesmere Port and Bristol resulted in the collapse of the market for small roundwood. Although the commission has managed to find alternative markets, especially in Scandinavia, the depressed state of the market in general has inevitably had its effects at forest level because of the need to avoid uneconomic working. Two years ago the commission was aware that in north east England it had more workers than it required to produce timber economically for the market. It did not declare redundancies at that time, in the hope that markets would show some improvement, and it employed its surplus workers on less essential tasks. There are now difficulties associated with the export markets, however, and although there are signs of recovery in the home market it will take some time for this to be reflected at forest level.
At the same time, the commission has continued to introduce measures to cut unnecessary costs and to improve productivity. Advances in mechanisation have been taking place. This has been particularly the case with harvesting machinery, which is becoming increasingly efficient. Fewer machines are required to carry out the work, and fewer people are needed to operate and maintain them. Better methods of extracting timber mean that a lower density of roading will have to be constructed or maintained, and this leads to smaller or fewer road squads. As the number of people employed falls, fewer light vehicles are required. The Northumberland fleet is being cut by about one third and that has an effect on the workshops. That is part of the trend towards forestry operations becoming less labour-intensive. The maintenance of jobs in the countryside is important, but that must be balanced against the need for the forest industry to be efficient and progressive.

Mr. Beith: The Minister has listed a number of activities which have become less labour-intensive. What about the maintenance of the forests? That has not become significantly less labour-intensive, nor has the need for it diminished.

Mrs. Fenner: I shall comment on maintenance later, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the balance. In a previous debate I said that one of the reasons for a drop in the commission's labour force was the transition in forestry from the labour-intensive stage of planting and establishment to a care-and-maintenance basis prior to harvesting. That is the stage that has been reached at Kidland forest in Northumberland, for example, where there is no planting programme and where the production of timber will not get under way for another 15 years. That forest is being put on a care-and-maintenance basis and the work can be handled from a nearby forest. The forest squad at Kidland is no longer required.
Let us look more closely at the situation in Northumberland. I certainly do not wish the House to be


given the impression that we are talking about a large number of redundancies. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figures. The commission had proposed to make 16 redundancies out of a work force of 215, but, as if to emphasise the ever-changing position even within the past few days, the number has been reduced to 12. Of the 12, three are young people who are likely to take up college places later this year, making their redundancies unnecessary.
However, the commission's proposals are still the subject of consultations with the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman said that the trade unions had intervened, but a consultation procedure already exists and changes will be made as a result. Redundancy notices have not yet been served on any commission employee in Northumberland.
If, at the end of the day, redundancies are confirmed, it is likely that most can be achieved by voluntary means. The number of compulsory redundancies will be very small indeed. Any redundancies are, of course, to be regretted, but I am satisfied that the commission has done its best to avoid them and that even now it is keeping them to a minimum. It is worth noting that, with the exception of a part-time clerk who was declared redundant in 1979, the last redundancies declared by the commission in Northumberland were in 1968.
We have been debating the outcome of the Forestry Commission's managing its enterprise against a background of rapidly changing circumstances. There is a positive side to all this. The Government are very much alive to the need to stimulate the growth of our forestry industry. That is why we have been encouraged by the recent announcement by United Paper Mills, a Finnish company, that it is to build an integrated pulp and newsprint mill at Shotton in North Wales, with full Government support. The Government have always expressed their conviction that there is a good future for the forestry and wood processing industries in Britain and that development bears out our confidence.
However, we must bear in mind the long lead-in time before the benefits of development such as at Shotton work through to the forest. That cannot happen overnight. A great deal of effort is being expended by the Forestry Commission and others to try to bring about further developments. For example, in Scotland the recently established Scottish Forest Products Development Group is actively seeking further investment in the wood processing industry. This and other initiatives, if successful, will help to ensure the health of our forest industry, with all that that means in terms of employment.
At this stage, nobody in Northumberland has been made redundant by the commission. Such redundancies as have been proposed are the subject of consultations with the unions. The numbers involved are small and could well become smaller in an ever-changing situation. If redundancies do take place as a result of the present discussions, they will not be because of the disposals programme or because of the commission's review of the management structure. Again, if redundancies do rake place it is likely that most, if not all, will be by voluntary means. The commission does not lightly make people redundant, as can be shown by its record over the years. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about job losses in Northumberland. The commission is an important provider of jobs in this area, but it must be allowed and indeed encouraged to operate efficiently in a competitive industry.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Thrunton. Again, I do not know where he gets his figures. The present labour force in Thrunton is two gangers, 20 workers and one ranger. The only discussions on possible redundancies affected six workers, of whom two are now to be retained. Four workers were young persons expected to attend college in the autumn, one of whom has subsequently resigned.

General Belgrano (Sinking)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I initiate this Adjournment debate on the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Belgrano not simply to hark back on history. If all this were history and had no effect on the future I might have been a great deal quieter than I am now.
I start by considering a dreadful scenario which was put to me again only last week by Alain Guegnon when he interviewed me and others for Radio Televisione Francais. He said that the week before he had been in Argentina to interview politicians—Alfonsin and senior Peronists—a number of the military and even ex-President Galtieri, under house arrest. Guegnon's scenario was that there would probably be no bee sting attack, although there could be low intensity operations against our forces involving enormous expense, at any rate until elections had taken place in Argentina. It was his opinion and mine, for what little it is worth on this, that a civilian Government, although they would be under considerable pressure from the military establishment to do something and might wish to see that military establishment thinking about what they call the Malvinas rather than a counter coup against an infant Parliament in Buenos Aires, would do nothing.
It is the opinion of French experts and, indeed, of some Latin Americans that such is the chaos in Argentina that within six to nine months a civilian Government will get into terrible trouble. The military will feel that they have to come back, that they want to come back and, said Guegnon and other people, there will then be real danger because the one popular cause that will unite left, right and centre, military and civilian, is a saving of Argentine honour in relation to what the Argentines see as their Malvinas. Therefore my activity is directed, above all else, towards warning about a second Falklands-Malvinas war. That is why it is important to return to the circumstances surrounding the Belgrano.
I was surprised by the Prime Minister's response to question No. 4 this afternoon. I understood her to say that news of the Peruvian proposals had not reached London until after the attack. I do not think that I have that wrong. But if that is true, what was the Foreign Secretary doing in Washington and New York? My understanding—and I ask to be corrected if it is not right — is that the Foreign Secretary knew of the Peruvian plans at least six and a half hours earlier.
Whatever may be said about Mr. Peter Snow in public print, he is an extremely careful journalist. Members of the BBC Newsnight team do not tread such delicate ground without checking and counter checking. They do not simply take my word. I must repeat what was said on 29 April on Newsnight. The transcript states:
It was now 12 hours before the attack on the Belgrano … and by this time there was a further development in Buenos Aires: according to the Peruvians a call came through in the early hours of Sunday from the Argentine capital: it was General Galtieri for president Belaunde. He said that he accepted the Peruvian plan and would put it to his junta that afternoon … At breakfast time in Washington Haig and Pym had a long meeting. Our American source tells us that it was now clear to Haig that Mr. Pym wanted a settlement, and was working hard for it.
To the best of my belief, the BBC's American sources were different from mine. Mr. Snow continued

We're told that Mr. Haig personally phoned Mrs. Thatcher. So, according to the Peruvians and the Americans Britain was aware—at the highest level—of all that had developed at the time they were getting up from lunch at Chequers: now what no-one is telling us is exactly when the war cabinet at Chequers made its decision to give the Navy the green light for the Conqueror to attack the Belgrano but whether or not the full reported details of President Galtieri's alleged acceptance of the plan were known to Mrs. Thatcher when she finally said Yes to Commander Wredford Brown"—
the commander of the Conqueror—
there should have been time to attempt to call the mission off in the intervening five hours.
Is the Newsnight report accurate? If it is not, I hope that this opportunity will be taken to spell that out.
A remarkable article has been written by Mr. Paul Foot in the current issue of New Statesman. It is best to be candid, and I do not hide from the House the fact that after my long speech on 21 December about the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano Mr. Paul Foot, together with a number of other journalists, came to cross-examine me. As a result, I urged him to go to Lima, and he finally decided to do so.
This is the evidence not of someone who has written an article off the top of his head in New Statesman, but the carefully considered writing of a journalist with a track record of considerable success, care, and accuracy—whatever some people may say about his political views. I have known him for 20 years since he was a reporter with the Scottish Daily Record in Glasgow, and he is an outstanding professional journalist. We ought to listen to his description in the current issue of New Statesman on Sunday, 2 May. He said that
optimism was increased considerably when Galtieri phoned Belaunde in the early morning. The high command, he said, was almost unanimous in approving the terms, though there were a number of small points to be negotiated.
Throughout that morning, Belaunde negotiated these points in calls to Washington and Buenos Aires.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Dalyell: The article continued:
In Washington, General Haig was in close touch with Francis Pym (he was probably in the same room for most of the time—certainly the two men had lunch together).
I gather they had breakfast together. It is extraordinary that the Prime Minister should say this afternoon that news of the Peruvian proposals did not reach London until after the attack. The implication is that her Foreign Secretary was doing all this, closeted with Haig, and that not a word had seeped through to Downing street. Are we to believe that? If we are, it indicates mind-boggling incompetence which, as a defender of the Foreign Office, I do not think it is capable of.
Foot continued:
The proposals were amended. Points of view and wishes' of the islanders was changed to 'needs and aspirations'. The membership of the contact group was left open, though it was suggested that Canada might come in for the US and Venezuela for Peru.
By noon, an agreement seemed secure. A final draft of a treaty was prepared by officials who had been at work in the 18th century Torre Tagli mansion (the headquarters of the Peruvian Foreign Office) since the early hours. It was drawn up for signature by the British and Argentine Ambassadors in Lima. The ceremony, it was confidently expected, would take place that night.
I should like to know, as would many other people, precisely what instructions were given to ambassador


Charles Wallace. In his Daily Mirror article last Thursday Mr. Paul Foot referred to something of which I had no notion, that is, that there was a treaty, bound in red leather, ready for signature. Are we to believe that Downing street knew nothing about this?
In the New Statesman article Foot continued:
General Galtieri, who had given the go-ahead for these preparations, made it clear that he must first get the approval of his official junta meeting, scheduled for 5 pm that afternoon. But, he insisted, the agreement of the junta was a formality.
This is confirmed by the Sunday Times Insight book on the Falklands war, which quotes a 'senior official' of the Argentinian Foreign Ministry as saying, 'I was in the room when Foreign Secretary Costa Mendes came in and said: "We have an agreement. We can accept this". Everybody was very excited.'
Once the junta meeting started in Buenos Aires, President Belaunde decided to hold his weekly press conference, which had been long delayed. At 4·45 pm, he went in front of the cameras with his Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to tell the world that a settlement was at hand 'this very night'. All three men made it quite plain that a settlement was imminent.
Indeed, the COI's recent guests from El Commercio, the Financial Times of Lima, talked freely to me about this. They have very close links with El Gaucho and the Peruvian military. Foot's article continued:
Very soon after the press conference, these high hopes were dashed. News came in of the sinking of the Belgrano some three and a half hours earlier … Communications were slow, since the cruiser's signalling systems were destroyed and its escorts and the submarine wanted to protect their positions.
I am leaving out some of the article because of the limited time. Later he said:
At 6.30pm, Foreign Minister Arias Stella received the Ambassadors of Britain (Mr. Charles Wallace) and Argentina (Mr. Louis Sanchez Mareno). Perhaps they came to sign the treaty. They were told the bad news and left.
Is it true that the British ambassador in Lima turned up expecting to sign a treaty? If it is not, I think that we should be told precisely what the truth is. I for one would very much like to hear the Foreign Office's view of the statements in New Statesman, to which I referred publicly when addressing a point of order to Mr. Speaker, thereby giving warning to the Foreign Secretary's office. Accordingly, I hope that these remarks are not coming out of the blue to the Minister.
Foot says:
The Belaunde proposals, it is safe to conclude, were taken seriously by both sides. They were drawn up into a treaty which was expected to be signed. And they were put to flight by the sinking of the Belgrano.
Senor Arias Stella, who is a fellow of the Royal Society of Pathologists in London and has no anti-British feeling, generously ascribes the Belgrano sinking to military accident. He told me that he and all his colleagues had assumed that some hothead submarine commander had let fly at the cruiser without any idea of the state of negotiations in Lima, Buenos Aires and Washington.
Commander Wredford Brown was no hothead submarine commander. He let the cat out of the bag when he came back to Faslane on the west coast of Scotland on 5 July and told friends of mine, reputable members of the Scottish press corps—Eric Mackenzie of the Scotsman and The Aberdeen Press and Journal—that he was a first-time submarine commander. He had not acted on his own initiative. He had acted on orders from Northwood. I do not agree in this instance with the generous Peruvian view that it was a hothead submarine commander who was responsible.
Foot states:
The seven-point plan had been agreed between Haig and Belaunde the previous night (in Britain, the early hours of the morning). Was it conveyed to Chequers that night? Did the War Cabinet meeting not have before it 'the latest from Francis in

Washington'? Even if they did not, they knew that Pym had gone to Washington in a last bid for peace. However hopeless such a mission seemed in the eyes of the hawks in the war cabinet (and by all accounts they were all hawks, except Pym), they knew that the armed forces could not be seen to cut the ground from tinder the Foreign Secretary's feet.
On arrival in Washington the previous evening, Mr. Pym gave an impromptu press conference. He explained that the attacks on the Falklands that day had been intended to concentrate the Argentines' mind on a peaceful settlement. He went on: `No further military action is envisaged at the moment, except to keep the exclusion zone secure.' (Times, 2 May 1982.) This pledge was kept —right up to the sinking of the Belgrano.
At the very least, then the Cabinet that Sunday morning knew that Pym was trying for peace and that a period of calm was vital if he was seen to be trying. That is the background, apparently, in which they gave the order to attack a ship on the high seas, with a complement of 1,000 men, when it was outside the war zone that they themselves had designated.
I just ask that there should be continuing study of the rest of what Foot has said. In the meantime I have tabled a parliamentary question for tomorrow, which the Foreign Office is free to answer or not to answer. It reads:
Pursuant to her answer of 12 May, by what means the Peruvian proposals reached London, and whether Her Majesty's Ambassador in Lima negotiated with the Government of Peru with the approval of Her Majesty's Government prior to any intimation of those proposals arriving in London.
I hope that there will be some answer given to that. I cannot believe that ambassador Wallace was acting entirely on his own.
I referred to the important article in the Daily Mirror, which was written by the man who was there. It states:
Frantic diplomatic activity in the eighteenth century mansion which is the headquarters of the Peruvian Foreign Office.
The most experienced diplomats in the service had been working all day on the draft treaty, erasing old clauses and inserting new ones as the talks went on. Now they prepared the final document.
It was couched in all the necessary diplomatic protocol, and bound in red leather. Spaces were left for the signatures of the British and Argentine ambassadors.
Ministers swarmed into the presidential palace. The American ambassador, Mr. Frank Ortiz, was there all afternoon.
Had all of that gone unbeknown to our Prime Minister? Are we expected to believe that? What were the instructions to Charles Wallace? The implication is that he was acting off his own bat. I find it curious to understand what senior diplomats may have been doing. "Seven Days to Victory", the Timescan publication, says:
Sir Nicholas Henderson was about to give a press conference when he heard the news of the attack from American Secretay of State Alexander Haig. Reporters say that he had lost his normally urbane manner and appeared white and shocked.
I asked Sir Nicholas Henderson, whom I have seen at Konigswinton on several occasions, about it, and of course it was understood between us that he could not talk about the matter. I hope that it is no discourtesy — and certainly none is intended to him—when I say that I was astonished that I should be asked to give evidence to Franks and that neither Anthony Parsons nor Nicholas Henderson were, but that is by the way.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister—I think I have her words correctly—said that the Belgrano was sunk for military reasons and that the threat was real. Not at the time of sinking it was not, I say, because if we are to be convinced of that, we need to have the previous course for 48 hours. There has been a whole tissue of inaccuracies.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow): Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalyell: Not by me.
On "The World At One", Mr. Ted Harrison presented an interesting programme reminding us of a clip from Mr. Nott, that the Belgrano had been detected at 8 pm. That was the first of a number of small inaccuracies and was part of larger inaccuracies; small truths as part of larger truths. We had the business of Faslane and the commander hoisting the jolly roger and saying that he did not act under the rules of engagement. The actions must have been known to the Prime Minister because the commander was directly under the command of Northwood, as were all the other submarines. As I understand it, the submarines were not under the command of the task force commander. One cannot establish that by way of parliamentary questions because it is an operational matter.
It is said that the Belgrano and her escorts were detected either on Saturday I May or possibly on Friday 30 April; that appears in The Sunday Times book. It is also the view of the crew to whom I talked, as well as appearing in Hastings and Jenkins, who are no friends of mine in this matter. That completely contradicts Fieldhouse's report and the statement in paragraph 110 of the White Paper:
On 2nd May, HMS Conqueror detected the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano accompanied by two destroyers. Not true.
Not true again that the Belgrano and her escorts were converging on the task force. They were on a 280 degree course and, by way of a parliamentary question, it was established that there were no units of the task force—or task group; I understand the distinction between the two —west of where the Belgrano was sunk.
We have been over the whole ridiculous business of the Burdwood bank, and that has been exposed. We have been into the whole question of the pincer movement and the Vincento de Mayo, and that has been exposed. If I am told by the Minister that I am wrong in all I am saying, it is up to him to give the Belgrano's course and that of her escorts in the previous 48 hours because there was no military threat and the sinking was political.
What we really must establish is the gap, in technical terms, between the sending of the message to Conqueror and its time of reception. At what time did the captain of Conqueror receive the order to sink the Belgrano? How continuously well informed were the authorisers of the sinking? What was the timing of the despatch of the authorisation to fire the torpedo in relation to any incoming news that agreement was being reached on the basis formulated by the Peruvian Government and that it was imminent?
If the Government knew that agreement was imminent and sent instructions, I concede it is different from sending instructions with the knowledge that the agreement was imminent. The timing in this matter is important. I asked the Government when they heard that agreement was close and what was the timing in relation to the despatch of the authorisation to sink and whether that authorisation was given before or after it was known that the Peruvian agreement was so close.
I believe that the real threat to the Prime Minister then was not the threat of the Belgrano and her escorts to the task force but the treaty which was to be bound in red leather. If it is said that this is just the hon. Member for West Lothian on his hobby horse, I must refer to today's Daily Mirror. I have given notice of this matter. The passage to which I refer is on page 7. To save time, I

should welcome a statement of the inaccuracies in the article "Belgrano: How much did Thatcher know?" Let us be told if the Daily Mirror has it entirely wrong.
The treaty involved the withdrawal by Argentine forces —the object of the exercise in the beginning—and the withdrawal of the task force. If the task force had been turned round, it is the judgment of many of us that many influential members of the Conservative party would have been wanting another leader. The paramount threat was to the occupancy of Downing street.
I assert that when Haig and Pym telephoned the Prime Minister with what they thought was peace, her reaction soon after receiving the messages about the state of the Argentine military that I assert she did receive—from American sources and MI6, which was not that imcompetent and the Nimrod A470 Marconi transceivers, to which I have referred previously—was one of horror on hearing that agreement on the treaty was so close. She saw the threat to her position. She telephoned Northwood and said, "Sink the Belgrano". With Nimrod there are good communications with the submarines. From Fieldhouse's report we know that Nimrods were on Ascension island from 6 April and had refuelling capacity soon after. There was no difficulty in communications.
I assert that the reaction was that Saint Francis of Assisi and peace, brought about by the Foreign Secretary, must be torpedoed. I assert further that a pale, horrified and livid Foreign Secretary went to his former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—that is why I referred to him at Question Time this afternoon—and told him the appalling story of the Prime Minister's behaviour. It was the suspicion of the relationship between her Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Sidcup that partly precipitated the Prime Minister's order to sink the Belgrano. It is an appalling charge to make. It is not geared to the forthcoming general election, because it may continue after.
I believe that the Prime Minster's first two statements this afternoon were false. Her third statement, that negotiations continued until 17 May, is ridiculous because once the Belgrano had been sunk negotiations were savaged.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that he wanted five or 10 minutes to reply. I have said a lot and we shall doubtless return to the subject, either tomorrow or in another Parliament, but the Minister of State has the right to reply.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow): I am glad to have that recognised. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has hurled a lot of baseless assertions and rubbish across the Chamber. He asked a lot of questions and I might be more inclined to feel that he wanted answers if he had left me a little more time in which to reply.
The hon. Gentleman had the answer from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. The fact that he does not accept it—

Mr. Dalyell: Lies.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman's behaviour in these matters begins to cast grave doubts on his mental stability. He seems to have an obsession or a fixation from which he cannot free himself. He comes back time and again.


However often he may he told that he is wrong and shown the facts, another invention creeps into his mind or inflames his imagination or a journalist eggs him on and off he goes again.
The hon. Gentleman can return to the subject as often as he likes, and I dare say that he will, but he will not alter the facts. The facts are as he has been given them. The Government have made it perfectly clear time and again that the General Belgrano was attacked soley for military reasons, because she posed a threat to ships of the task force. The hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore the warnings that were given not merely about the exclusion zone but in the message on 23 April from our Government, through the Swiss, to the Argentine Government, making it clear that ships of their navy that approached the exclusion zone would be attacked if they threatened to interfere with the mission of the British forces in the South Atlantic. That was a public statement and the fact that the hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore it does not carry the conviction that the hon. Gentleman always seeks to carry.
Circumstantial detail and a mass of verbiage pour from the hon. Gentleman on these occasions.

Mr. Dalyell: What about the previous course of the Belgrano?

Mr. Onslow: Here we go again. I shall come to the Belgrano presently. I want to talk seriously to the hon. Gentleman about what he is alleging. He puts the proposition that the Belgrano was attacked in order to sabotage the Peruvian-sponsored peace effort. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have had a thorough re-examination made of the relevant papers. The results show conclusively that news of the United States—Peruvian proposals reached London only after the attack on the Belgrano, which is what the Prime Minister said this afternoon.

Mr. Dalyell: Then what the hell was the Foreign Secretary doing?

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will tell him what was going on. Then he will not have to rely on journalistic speculation.
The first intimation that we had of the existence of any such proposals came in a series of conversations between Mr. Haig and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Washington on 2 May. After Mr. Haig outlined elements of a framework for a diplomatic solution, they were explored first by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and later, after his departure for New York, by Sir Nicholas Henderson, our ambassador in Washington.
My right hon. Friend and Sir Nicholas both made it clear to Mr. Haig that, following the failure of Mr. Haig's detailed efforts because of the Argentine attitude, they did not wish to be rushed into hasty consideration of the framework elements and would wish to consult the Government in London before giving any reaction. The result of those conversations was telegraphed to London at 22.15 GMT, over three hours after the attack on the Belgrano. It could not be telegraphed before, because it was not possible to get a clear and concise statement before that time of what was in the air.
It is clear that Ministers in London had no knowledge of any new proposals before the Belgrano was attacked and that they were acting solely on the basis of the perceived military threat. There is no evidence to suggest that Peter

Snow was right in saying that there was a real prospect of peace. Indeed, suggestions in the press today that the Peruvian proposals should have been transmitted to London sooner and that there was a treaty which, for some extraordinary reason, was the only window of opportunity for peace in the South Atlantic are fanciful in the extreme.
The fact that the treaty, which did not exist, is alleged to have been bound in red leather is another classic example of an attempt to add
verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
The hon. Gentleman should understand this. He should understand that some of the information that reaches him is not necessarily from untainted sources, and the same is true of some of the information that Mr. Paul Foot receives. Unnamed Argentine officials are scarcely the most reliable witnesses in the circumstances that we are considering.
This is the position. The proposals that came through to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ambassador in Washington on 2 May were no more than a framework of ideas. They were put across in a series of consultations on that day. There were certain points that our ambassador needed to pursue further with Mr. Haig after my right hon. Friend had left Washington for New York on that afternoon. Mr. Haig was not pressing for an instant reaction. As soon as the framework was clear, a reporting telegram was dispatched at the time that I have said. Our ambassador in Lima could not have gone anywhere or signed anything as he had had no instructions and there was no treaty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept these things, but I doubt it, because we know his track record in these matters. He is apparently capable of deluding himself into believing that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is the most important man in the Conservative party. He made a great speech on 25 January going on at length about that. He said on that occasion that there were any number of opportunities when an honourable peace could have been had for the asking. That is simply not true, and the hon. Gentleman must know that it is not true because it was Argentine intransigence that always caused the negotiations to founder. It was the Argentines who in the end backed away. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman defines "honourable", but a statement of that kind is pure fantasy.
Then, the other day, we had the episode when the hon. Gentleman gave great publicity to a series of unfounded smears about the Gurkhas. I hope that he now accepts that there was no truth in that and is sorry that he put those statements on the pages of Hansard. He is, of course, not sorry, because he has no regrets and no shame. However, his motives are not of the purest. He stands there with some great personal crusade that he says has nothing to do with political inspiration or party motive. I doubt if many people think that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman's halo is not shining particularly brightly, because he is pursuing a vendetta for personal reasons, which is based on an obsession of which he cannot free himself. It is time that he faced that fact and stopped wasting the time of the House with the baseless allegations that serve no purpose for him or for anybody else.
I must make one point clear. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find where responsibility lies for the deaths that resulted from the sinking of the Belgrano, he should not


be looking in London or seeking to put the blame on anybody here. Let him go and look in Buenos Aires and ask himself and others why the Belgrano was at sea.

Mr. Dalyell: What was the Foreign Office doing for 17 years?

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of flipping his lid by going on in this extraordinary way. I find it, as others do, difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman. I found it difficult to understand his intervention at Prime Minister's Question Time today. My right hon. Friend's answer could not have been clearer, more categorical, more firm or closer to the truth.

Mr. Dalyell: Untrue.

Mr. Onslow: Here we go. The hon. Gentleman, for some reason, persists in saying "Untrue" from a sedentary position, but I wish to bring my points to a conclusion.
If the hon. Gentleman is looking for the people who were responsible for the deaths in the Belgrano, let him look in Buenos Aires and try to pin down the homicidal lunatic of an Argentine admiral who sent that ship to sea and caused it to sail up and down on the fringes of an area,

and into an area where he must clearly have known that the ship was in danger of meeting the fate that befell it. That is where the blame lies, so let the hon. Gentleman take himself off there and pursue his vendetta somewhere else.

Mr. Dalyell: I have just asked factual questions and received an astonishing answer. We are told that at 22.15 there was a telegram that was the first that the Foreign Office knew about the matter. Apparently we are expected to believe that Ministers in London did not know what their Foreign Secretary had been doing in Washington. This raises the most crucial questions about communications between the Foreign Secretary and his Department and his relationship with the Prime Minister. The Minister of State's answer persuades me to believe every statement that I have made, not least that about the relationship with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I give notice that tomorrow I shall be queuing up for another Adjournment debate and—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.